STAMPA INTERNAZIONALE

                                                          ***********************                                           

LE MONDE  6.5.2012

 http://www.lemonde.fr/election-presidentielle-2012/article/2012/05/06/nicolas-sarkozy-je-m-apprete-a-redevenir-un-francais-parmi-les-francais_1696688_1471069.html

Élection présidentielle 2012

 Nicolas Sarkozy : "Je m'apprête à redevenir un Français parmi les Français"

Le président sortant Nicolas Sarkozy a admis dimanche soir sa défaite à la présidentielle, dont il a affirmé porter "toute la responsabilité", en souhaitant "bonne chance au milieu des épreuves" au socialiste François Hollande, qui "doit être respecté". Il a reconnu qu'il allait redevenir "un Français parmi les Français", expliquant que son engagement serait désormais "différent", lors de sa première allocution après l'annonce des résultats du second tour de la présidentielle.

"Après 35 ans de mandats politiques, (...) cela fait dix ans que chaque seconde, je vis pour les responsabilités gouvernementales au plus haut niveau, après cinq ans à la tête de l'Etat, mon engagement dans la vie de mon pays sera désormais différent", a dit M. Sarkozy, qui s'exprimait au palais de la Mutualité à Paris.

"UNE AUTRE ÉPOQUE S'OUVRE"

"Au moment ou je m'apprête à redevenir un Français parmi les Français, plus que jamais, j'ai l'amour de notre pays inscrit au plus profond de mon coeur", a-t-il ajouté. "Une autre époque s'ouvre, dans cette nouvelle époque je resterai l'un des vôtres et vous pourrez compter sur moi pour défendre nos idées et nos convictions, mais ma place ne pourra plus être la même", a-t-il déclaré devant ses partisans à Paris.

Nicolas Sarkozy a laissé ainsi entendre qu'il va se mettre en retrait de la vie politique, sans annoncer explicitement qu'il met fin à sa carrière. Avant l'élection, à plusieurs reprises, il avait indiqué qu'en cas de défaite, il arrêterait la politique.

.----------------------------------------

LE MONDE 7.5.2012

http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2012/05/07/apres-l-election-le-retour-au-principe-de-realite-economique_1697302_3232.html

 Après l'élection, le retour au principe de réalité économique

Le Monde.fr | 07.05.2012 à 11h46 • Mis à jour le 07.05.2012 à 11h56

La campagne présidentielle touche à sa fin. Moins vaine qu'elle n'a d'abord paru parce que, de façon presque subliminale et beaucoup mieux que par de savantes enquêtes, elle a révélé les craintes mais aussi les espoirs profonds de nos compatriotes. D'un côté, la peur insidieuse de voir bientôt la crise toucher notre pays dans un registre proche de celui qui a été subi ailleurs (Grèce, Espagne, Italie). De l'autre, le sentiment diffus qu'il était néanmoins possible de réagir et d'avoir un sursaut mais à une condition expresse : rompre avec les schémas qui ont justement été ceux qui nous ont projetés dans le drame.

Aujourd'hui, le progrès principal vient de ce que les Français ont compris une chose : nous n'échapperons pas à une véritable "cure" en matière de réduction de la dépense publique, de fiscalité et de désendettement. A l'inverse, une austérité mal dosée et inéquitablement partagée, à elle seule, ne résoudra pas la question du surendettement. Pratiquée simultanément par le plus grand nombre de pays européens, elle installera au cœur de l'Europe une véritable trombose stagnationniste qui s'auto-entretiendra. Chaque pays jouera sa partition sur l'air bien connu des années 1930 : cela reviendra à "mendier son chômage auprès de son voisin", comme le disaient alors nos amis anglo-saxons. Freiner trop brutalement dans un pays, c'est porter atteinte à ses capacités actuelles et, plus encore futures, de remboursement ; c'est aller vers des taux de croissance si faibles qu'ils resteront, blocage mécanique rédhibitoire, inférieurs aux taux d'intérêt, aussi bas ces derniers soient-ils actuellement. Notons en passant qu'il y a pour le moins lieu de s'étonner de ce qu'il ait fallu des mois et des mois pour que les responsables de Bruxelles et ceux de Francfort (BCE) aient bien voulu admettre que l'austérité ne pouvait à elle seule nous tirer d'affaire et qu'il faudra, simultanément, tout autant soutenir la croissance.

Pour y parvenir, une réorientation profonde de nos politiques économiques aura à s'imposer, pour commencer, sur deux plans. Celui, d'abord, d'une croissance "sobre" qui conduira à tailler dans le vif de certains programmes sans doute spectaculaires mais qui ne font qu'augmenter les frais généraux de la nation et ne génèrent que des emplois transitoires. Les médiathèques dans chaque chef-lieu de canton ou presque, les palais nationaux qui se superposent, les stades surdimensionnés à construire pour la coupe du monde de football, sont notamment de bons exemples de cette incurie. Mais on en trouverait bien d'autres. Plus généralement, la chasse aux gaspillages dans nombre de services publics sera à entreprendre, y compris dans les secteurs qui, à l'exemple dans notre service de santé qui est excellent mais miné par les excès des dépenses collatérales (transport des malades, paramédical, etc.) et, trop souvent, par les dépassements d'honoraires.

Ce qu'exprime le ras-le-bol révélé par l' élection présidentielle, c'est cette incapacité à coller en priorité aux besoins les plus fondamentaux, comme le logement ou l'offre de travail, au profit trop souvent du spectaculaire et du clinquant. Si on veut réorienter le modèle, il ne faudra d'ailleurs ne pas écarter d'une chiquenaude méprisante les aspirations des jeunes (ou des écologistes) à une société capable de discerner le principal de l'accessoire et donc d'accepter un certain "dépouillement". La reprise en mains de la dépense publique pourrait bien en particulier passer demain par l'encouragement d'une consommation plus responsable qui, elle-même, devrait mieux correspondre au "produire localement" et au " consommer mieux", pour peu qu'une action de persuasion intelligente des pouvoirs publics y contribue.

Deuxième ardente obligation pour valider les non-dits de la campagne : la réindustrialisation. La France ne peut continuer à perdre ses emplois industriels au rythme actuel (de 36 % entre 1980 et 2007 et, encore 89 000 entre le 1^er octobre 2009 et le 1^er septembre 2010) et à accumuler un déficit commercial supérieur aujourd'hui à 70 milliards d'euros l'an. On a trop admis comme une fatalité le marchandage global qui s'est insidieusement imposé : approvisionnement à moindre coût sur le marché mondial contre déflation des salaires et pertes des emplois. L'ouverture toujours plus grande des économies nationales n'a pas à l'usage à être considérée comme le nec plus ultra de la politique commerciale. Il ne faut pas être naïfs ; nombre de pays s'exonérent aisément du respect des obligations de base de l'OMC notamment pour les commandes publiques et les conditions de concurrence. La campagne présidentielle a révélé au grand jour que s'il est important de pouvoir échanger et pour cela de ne pas sacrifier la productivité, il faut faire de la "réciprocité" la règle d'or de la nouvelle approche de l'échange international. Pas d'entrée libre sur le territoire national pour les productions des pays qui sous-rémunèrent par trop le travail, pratiquent le dumping fiscal ou environnemental. Ils sont nombreux, pas seulement en Asie et dans les pays émergents mais aussi, on l'oublie trop aisément, aux franges de l'Europe et, même à l'intérieur d'elle-même.

Le changement de pied en matière de politique commerciale est en fait premier. La campagne de l'élection présidentielle a eu le mérite de faire sortir le débat du cercle trop étroit de ceux qui s'ingénient depuis des années à nous dire que hors du libre échange pur et dur, qui en fait n'existe pas vraiment, point de salut. A l'évidence, ce logiciel n'est pas celui d'une forte majorité de la population et, sans tomber dans les facilités du repliement, il faudra à l'avenir en tenir compte. La réciprocité pourrait même devenir le marqueur d'opportunité des accords commerciaux des prochaines années. La marge de manœuvre est sans doute étroite. Ainsi, on ne saurait s'en tenir à la pieuse référence, encore trop répandue, à un "protectionnisme européen", pour la bonne raison que la majorité de nos partenaires n'en veut absolument pas. Le protectionnisme national "intelligent" est certes encore à inventer ; il sera très difficile à imposer car il véhicule toujours une certain soupçon d'agressivité et un risque potentiel de représailles. Il y a cependant, sur le plan bilatéral, des espaces de négociation à trouver en partant notamment des principaux postes lourdement déficitaires (en tendance) de notre balance commerciale dont il est légitime de négocier les moyens de rééquilibrage y compris d'ailleurs avec nos partenaires européens. Cet effort devra aussi s'appuyer sur une gestion sensiblement plus vigoureuse de l'euro car ce dernier a beaucoup trop longtemps été maintenu surévalué au bénéfice du pays qui s'en accommode le mieux du fait de son avantage relatif en termes de compétitivité hors prix.

Les deux réorientations précédentes, pour décisives qu'elles puissent être, ne représentent qu'une partie des travaux d'Hercule qu'exige la gravité exceptionnelle de la situation économique et sociale de la France. S'il fallait en compléter la liste, s' y ajouteraient encore deux autres ardentes obligations : le choix d'une stratégie du désendettement et la réforme fiscale. Elles sont, l'une et l'autre, des corolllaires de la relance sobre et de la réindustrialisation que nous devons entreprendre de toute urgence.

Henri Bourguinat est l'auteur de l'ouvrage Les intégrismes économiques (Dalloz, 2006) et, avec Eric Briys, de Marchés de dupes, pourquoi la crise se prolonge (Editions Maxima, 2010).

.----------------------------------------

 THE GUARDIAN  7.5.2012

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/07/angela-merkel-francois-hollande-bust-up

A Merkel-Hollande bust-up? Less likely than you might think

Angela Merkel and François Hollande are not ideologically aligned, but that is often no barrier in European diplomacy

Philip Oltermann

guardian.co.uk, Monday 7 May 2012 16.53 BST

Article history

Angela Merkel isn't due to meet François Hollande for the first time until next week, but she must think she already knows him fairly well. Otherwise her senior diplomats wouldn't have confidently announced that the German and French head of state will find a "pragmatic solution" over the new fiscal pact, as they told Süddeutsche Zeitung last week. But then she would say that: pragmatism is what Merkel is all about.

When not quipping for the 100th time that the new Franco-German alliance at the heart of European politics will no longer be known as "Merkozy" but as "Merde", the British press still tends to talk of continental diplomacy in terms of with-me-or-without-me pacts and cloak-and-dagger intrigues. In fact, the German leader has long outlived the ideology-driven politics of the early 20th century: Merkel's leadership style in Europe has become a perfect lesson in the best and worst of Anglo-Saxon-style wait-and-see pragmatism.

There are certainly some in Merkel's Christian Democrats who believe with their heart and soul in fiscal prudence and austerity, but Merkel isn't one of them. In fact, she changed to a pro-growth tune as soon as a Hollande victory looked likely back in April. We think Cameron does U-turns: Merkel does cartwheels. Her ministerial track record is stained with skid marks on military intervention in Afghanistan, state subventions, euro bailouts and, most spectacularly, nuclear power.

What's surprising is that she manages to get away with it. In Sunday's local elections in Schleswig Holstein, her party lost 0.7%, while her coalition partner, the Free Democrats, lost 6.7%. Yet the German media was somehow tricked into writing it up as a defeat for the Social Democrats and Greens, who missed out on a complete majority thanks to the ongoing success of the Pirate Party, who are mopping up a large share of the protest vote. Next weekend's election on North Rhine-Westphalia is likely to paint a similar picture of a declining liberal party and a not-quite-strong-enough left.

In fact, the rumour is that Merkel has already realised that Europe's current economic strategy isn't working, and that she may well be reaching for the escape button before it is too late. There's talk in Berlin of Merkel calling for an early election in September, ditching the Free Democrats and heading for a grand coalition with the Social Democrats: it would not only put her in a stronger when the economic storm finally arrives in Germany, but also would enable her to make some concession to Hollande, such as a financial transaction tax, currently opposed by the liberals.

Hollande's warning shot to France's westerly neighbour – "it is not for Germany to decide for the rest of Europe" – has lead some to proclaim "the end of austerity". Whether Hollande will actually live up to his rhetoric is another matter. In last week's TV debate, Hollande made repeated references to the success of the German model; parliamentary president Jean-Marc Ayrault, who knows Germany well, is lined up for a leading ministerial role.

What's more likely than a big bust-up is that the two will readjust and get on. Back in 1981 there were similar fears over a Franco-German fallout as social democrat Helmut Schmidt found himself faced with a newly elected socialist François Mitterrand. A report by the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum (OMFIF )released this week reveals Schmidt's frustration with Mitterrand then: "Your means and your methods are such that we cannot harmonise them".

But Schmidt was soon voted out and conservative Helmut Kohl and Mitterrand got on like a house on fire. One of the quirks of Franco-German relations is that politicians from opposite ends of the political spectrum often get on better than people from the same party.

Still, Hollande had better be careful: he is facing a slippery negotiation partner. The danger for Europe is not that the French and German leaders won't get on, but that Merkel tricks Hollande into thinking he has won the argument while Europe continues on the same precarious path as before.

 ------------------------------------------

 THE ECONOMIST  5.5.2012

 http://www.economist.com/node/21554245 

German family policy

Pay to stay at home

The government plans a controversial benefit for stay-at-home mothers

May 5th 2012 | BERLIN | from the print edition

 CRITICS call it a “hearth bonus” or “keep-your-kids-out-of-school money”. The government prefers Betreuungsgeld (“child-care benefit”). Few of its ideas are as contentious as a planned €150 ($199) monthly payment to parents who do not put their children into crèches. Angela Merkel, the Christian Democrat chancellor, defends this as “an essential part of our policy of freedom of choice.” But it seems to contradict much of what she stands for.

Germany’s long-term worries include a shrinking and ageing population, immigrants who are not fully integrated into the workforce and women who are both underemployed and underpaid. German women work fewer hours than women in most other OECD countries (see chart). The gap in median pay is the third-widest in the club, after South Korea’s and Japan’s. That is partly because mothers stay at home. In 2008 just 18% of children under the age of three were in formal child care, against an OECD average of 30%.

Mrs Merkel has tackled some of these problems in the face of resistance from her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its Bavarian sibling, the Christian Social Union (CSU). Her first government (a coalition with the Social Democrats) introduced “parent pay”, a salary-linkedbenefit meant to encourage women to become mothers without abandoning their careers. The same government made promises to expand crèche places that the present one is trying to keep. By 2013 parents will have a legal right to a day-care place after a child’s first birthday.

Good crèches are thought by some to be a cure-all. By helping women to combine motherhood and career, they relieve skills shortages, boost growth and reduce inequality between the sexes. They might even lift Germany’s miserably low fertility rate. Children of immigrant parents are often handicapped by speaking German badly; crèches help to correct that. Germany is generous with cash and tax benefits for families, notes Monika Queisser of the OECD, but spends less on child care than France and the Nordic countries. Mrs Merkel is trying to correct this imbalance.

Yet Betreuungsgeld goes in the opposite direction. Women will be induced to interrupt their careers, and the temptation will be greatest for those who can afford it least, says Jutta Allmendinger, president of the Social Science Research Centre, Berlin. Those children who most need a start in education will stay at home. The money would be better invested in expanding crèches, which threaten to fall short of demand, Ms Allmendinger thinks. She compares Betreuungsgeld to building a road but paying motorists not to drive on it.

In truth Mrs Merkel is catering to traditional ideas of motherhood, which remain tenacious in Germany. More than a quarter of parents of young children think mothers should stay at home, according to Allensbach, a pollster. Most 18- to 29-year-olds support the new benefit, although overall public opinion is sceptical. The biggest reason for Mrs Merkel’s support is to please the CSU, which is by tradition the largest party in Bavaria. Crèches do not improve children’s educational prospects, the party insists, and they can jeopardise their emotional development.

Other parts of Mrs Merkel’s fraying coalition may not support her. The liberal Free Democratic Party prefers to spend money balancing the budget. Some 23 Bundestag deputies from the CDU threaten to vote against Betreuungsgeld. One way to divide opposition might be to deny the benefit to those on welfare. That would make it cheaper, and would reduce the risk that children from poor families were kept out of early education. The left would fume, but critics within the coalition might be appeased. Betreuungsgeld just may be a bad idea whose time has come.

from the print edition | Europe

.----------------------------------------

THE ECONOMIST  3.5.2012

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/05/draghis-ten-year-vision

Draghi's ten-year vision

What Mario means when he talks about growth

May 3rd 2012, 16:12 by P.W. | LONDON

·                               E European Central Bank was playing away today, in Barcelona rather than Frankfurt, but the result would have been the same wherever its governing council met: a no-change score, with the main policy rate left at 1%. The ECB wants more time to assess both recent adverse economic developments and the impact of its “Big Bertha” operations in December and February which together provided banks with €1 trillion ($1.3 trillion) of cheap three-year funding.

Speaking after the meeting, Mario Draghi, the ECB's president, said that these actions had averted a big credit crunch and described monetary policy as “accommodative”, with real interest rates negative in all 17 euro-area states. One positive development was that deposits were flowing back to banks in the vulnerable economies; another that April’s lending survey showed that banks were not tightening credit availability as much as before.

But the ECB’s council met in troubled times, in a troubled city. The euro crisis is proving lethal not just for economies but for governments as many electors reject both austerity and further European integration. A day earlier Eurostat reported that euro-area unemployment had reached 10.9%, the highest in the 13-year life of the single currency. In Barcelona it now stands at 21.6%. Spain has slipped back in recession and figures later this month are likely to show that euro-wide GDP has also shrunk for two successive quarters.

Against this sombre backdrop, there has been a distinct shift in political rhetoric, away from an insistence on joyless austerity as a means of countering the debt crisis and towards talk about growth. The change of mood has mainly arisen from the first round in the French presidential election. If, as seems likely, François Hollande prevails over Nicolas Sarkozy in the concluding round on Sunday, he will press for growth to become the priority.

Mr Draghi had himself recently called for a “growth compact” to accompany the recently agreed “fiscal compact”, which enshrines austerity in national laws. But, as he spelt out today, he is not endorsing any letting-up in austerity; indeed he saw no contradiction between promoting growth and continuing with fiscal consolidation.

Instead Mr Draghi’s version of a growth compact would accomplish three things. First, he wants more progress with structural reforms, in product as well as labour markets, not least since enhancing competition between firms is often the precondition for greater labour flexibility. Second, he advocates more investment in infrastructure at the European level and backs a better mix of fiscal retrenchment, focused more on cutting current spending than on axing investment and raising taxes. And third (and most important) he wants politicians to signpost a fiscal way forward for the euro area over the next ten years, which would delegate budgetary sovereignty in some measure to the centre without the euro zone becoming a transfer union (the mere mention of which is guaranteed to raise hackles in Germany).

Mr Draghi invoked the success of the campaign to create a monetary union in the 1990s as the model for his fiscal call to arms. By setting out a clear objective, with staging posts and preconditions, European governments were able to convince markets that they meant business in doing away with their national currencies. But that success was for an incomplete project—a monetary union without a fiscal underpinning—which has proved its undoing since the Greek crisis erupted two years ago. Now the ECB president is saying that the project must be completed with a similar clarity of vision to the creation of the euro.

Italians are great cyclists (and look the part in their stylish kit) and essentially Mr Draghi was invoking the “bicycle” theory of European integration: without forward momentum, the enterprise fails. It has worked in the past, but the politics had soured before the euro crisis and have turned sourer since, with many voters now hostile to the European project as well as austerity. Mr Draghi wants to calm frightened investors and stressed markets by offering them the comfort of a euro-wide fiscal destination. The trouble is that this journey may be in the wrong direction at the wrong time for national electorates

---------------------------

THE GUARDIAN  2.5.2012

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/02/italy-recession-widows  

Why I'm leading the march of Italy's 'recession widows'

My husband is one of more than 70 people who have taken their lives because of Italy's economic crises. Something has to give

Tiziana Marrone

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 2 May 2012 17.06 BST

Article history

As the financial crisis grips Italy, even basic provisions can become hard to afford. Photograph: Alamy

My husband, Giuseppe Campaniello, was a self-employed bricklayer who worked alone. He always worked and working was not a problem for him. In the two months leading up to the tragedy he was stuck at home because of the snow, and then because he had shingles.

I didn't know what was happening because he had never spoken about his debts with the taxman. The kind of debts you build up when the crisis hits, when people don't pay and you fall into the worst kind of desperation, prompted by the system and in part by this government, which makes you feel small and humiliates you.

On 28 March 2012, Giuseppe set fire to himself outside the tax office, because he was trapped and no one had given him the chance to pull himself out. My husband, who was a dignified man, found he was pushing against a wall to the point that fear and desperation drove him to the extreme act of self-immolation.

I met Giuseppe in 1984. We married in 1985 and spent a year and half in Abruzzo, the region of Italy where my family comes from. There was little work in Abruzzo so we moved to Bologna in 1987, to where Giuseppe's family had moved when he was young. He was originally from Campania, where there is no work and people get by any way they can.

My husband was dedicated to his work and to his family and has always been honest. He was discreet, educated and a touch introverted – he never liked discussing his business. And that is why it falls to me today to tell the world about a husband who sacrificed his own life to protect his wife and his family.

And it falls to me to tell the world about an economy that is killing people. People just can't take it any more, which is why we are organising a demonstration, starting at 10am this Friday, 4 May, in front of the Maggiore hospital in Bologna, followed by a march that will end in front of the tax office.

It will not be a political event. We will only wave white flags to commemorate deaths like Giuseppe's, of which there have been more than 70 since the start of the year. With people continuing to take their own lives, we want to say loudly that something has to change. The saddest thing is that the government is doing nothing to change things. Taxes continue to rise and cuts that hurt people continue to be introduced. This government needs to put people in the right condition to pay the taxes it wants. Money is not falling from the skies at the moment, there is no work and people are increasingly desperate.

This crisis is ruining families, ruining society and turning people against each other as they try to defend what they have, while the government continues to do what it likes with our lives, passing laws that favour the banks and therefore favour them. My husband is not the only victim and I believe there will be many more of these casualties. I have tried to track down other widows and I really hope they heard the appeals I have made on TV.

I am now part of a group of desperate people with no work and a hard life, as well as a husband who is no more. We know there will be a large turnout for the march and we know that people are backing us. I will be asking the tax authorities to do something for me because I really don't know how I am going to get by.

.----------------------------------------

THE OBSERVER  29.4.2012

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/apr/29/europe-revolt-against-austerity

Politicians braced for backlash as Europe turns against austerity

Voters sick of endless belt-tightening are threatening a backlash that could sweep their political leaders from power if they do not listen to the growing chorus for change

Comments (105)

Peter Beaumont

The Observer, Sunday 29 April 2012

Article history

At the end of last month, 5,000 people marched through Dublin to protest against the imposition of a €100 (£80) household tax that the Irish government was already struggling to collect from voters sick of austerity measures imposed on a stagnating economy.

It was a small demonstration by the standards of some that have taken place across Europe in recent months – in places such as Syntagma Square in Athens, or in Spanish cities during the general strike that took place just before the Dublin protest – but numbers on the streets are not everything these days.

As polls in Ireland revealed last week, support for the coalition government's policies is collapsing, while backing for Sinn Féin – which is calling for a "no" vote in next month's referendum on the EU fiscal compact that would bind member states other than the UK, which opted out, to budget deficits of 3% or less in perpetuity – has propelled it into the rank of Ireland's second most popular party after Fine Gael. Whether there will still be a fiscal compact to vote on, when the Irish go to the polls, is a moot point. The likely winner of the second round of the French presidential elections next Sunday, the Socialist, François Hollande – who some polls put nine points ahead of the incumbent, Nicolas Sarkozy – has said he would revise the deal.

In recent days, the Dutch coalition government has been brought down by the departure of Geert Wilders's far-right Freedom party, which was unwilling to sign up to a budget in line with the EU's belt-tightening package, even though the Dutch government has been one of the most aggressively in favour of imposing harsh austerity measures on members such as Greece and Portugal. Indeed, opinion polls in the Netherlands suggest that if elections – set for September – took place today, parties opposing the austerity regime might, both to the left and far right, win up to a third of seats.

While some analysts have pointed to Hollande's emergence as the leader of a pan-European anti-austerity movement, others believe that something more complex is occurring – a "game-changing moment" in Europe in which individual electorates are emboldened to push back and debate new strategies by events they see taking place in other countries. What is being demanded by voters, as European debt has continued to balloon along with unemployment, even as growth has evaporated, is nothing less than a "Plan B" – an alternative to the dominant anti-austerity drive. Significantly, for the first time those calls are gaining real traction.

"The one thing you notice," says Eoin O'Malley, a politics lecturer at Dublin City University researching reactions to the European crisis, "is how the push back in one country [against austerity] is influencing politics elsewhere. You see Hollande's comments in France and the fall of the Dutch government influencing how voters here see the Irish referendum on the fiscal compact and believing increasingly they can say no. If you ask me now, I would bet that a no vote was more likely than it was last week."

In just a few weeks, the long-running European debt catastrophe that has stumbled from summit to bailout to the fall of governments has been transformed into a far more corrosive crisis of legitimacy that is increasingly pitting electorates against the established political castes. From London to Madrid, from the EU's northern core to its periphery, voters have begun to resist policies tightly predicated on targets and deadlines for reducing debt to satisfy the markets and ratings agencies that have no means for encouraging growth.

While in London and Berlin politicians and officials have stuck to the script – that there is no Plan B – elsewhere the past few weeks have seen increasing signs that senior EU and government officials are rapidly waking up to the risks posed to the EU by the new public mood of resistance. This has seen politics return to reassert itself in a crisis that has for long been dominated by economic considerations and has led to the fall of five European governments so far.

Last Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal quoted unnamed officials tentatively suggesting that a debate had begun on whether to soften the 2009 targets for reducing debt to 3% of GDP by 2013. "The debate is not to be excluded," the paper quoted one EU official as saying, "but it could give a signal that we are easing up at a time when we are struggling to show that we can keep the system."

By Friday, that debate – initiated by Hollande – had been taken up in unexpected places. Mario Monti, the technocratic prime minister of Italy installed precisely to pursue an austerity regime, became the latest leader to criticise a policy focused only on cutting. "If there is no demand, growth will not materialise. All the reforms we are putting in place now are deflationary," he said.

Last Thursday, the president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, said that growth needed to be pushed to the front of the debate, although he later cautioned: "There are no magic formulas." He was responding to the European Central Bank's Mario Draghi, who on Wednesday told the European parliament's economic and monetary affairs committee that a fiscal compact needed to be followed by a "growth compact".

It is a debate that has been accompanied by loud and febrile commentary from economists and analysts in the media, who have become emboldened to declare Europe's much-heralded bailout, less than two months old, stillborn.

In the New York Times last week, Nobel prizewinning economist Paul Krugman – long at the forefront of criticising austerity measures – denounced the failed "zombie economic policies" of Europe's (and America's) "austerians".

In the Financial Times, José Ignacio Torreblanca, of the European Council on Foreign Relations, reflecting a growing view even within the conservative Spanish administration of Mariano Rajoy, whose government's credit rating was on Friday downgraded a second time, announced: "Time to say 'basta' to the nonsense of austerity."

None of which is what Germany and its chancellor, Angela Merkel, want to hear before a key vote in May in the German parliament that would not only approve the fiscal compact, but even more importantly, the European Stability Mechanism – the region's new emergency bailout fund. Other events on the horizon include elections in Greece and the French legislative elections in June, all of which threaten to turn a growing anti-austerity moment, underpinned by rising populism, into a major crisis.

If there is one place, however, where the anti-austerity backlash is not being felt, it is in Germany, where the prescription from politicians and central bankers for Europe's problem cases remains largely unchanged. It was reiterated in comments to the New York Times last week by Jens Weidmann, president of the Bundesbank and formerly a top adviser to Merkel, who warned that agreements previously made must be respected, even at the loss of some "national sovereignty". Ulrike Guérot, a colleague of Torreblanca and senior research fellow and representative for Germany on the European Council on Foreign Relations, explains: "It is different for the German government. It can still withstand the wider sense of political crisis because there is no unemployment at 50%, as there is in Spain, and no rising political populism."

Despite that, she believes that outside Germany "a game change is coming" that Merkel will not be able to ignore. While Guérot believes that the rapid change in the tone of the debate may cause a moment of political crisis for Europe, she also argues that the imminent ending of "Merkozy" – the lockstep relationship between France and Germany embodied in Merkel and Sarkozy that has driven European economic and political policy – may be a good thing. "What is happening is serious. François Hollande seems to be emerging as a leader of a pan-European anti-austerity movement."

Guérot believes that the "symbiotic relationship" of Sarkozy and Merkel as the driving engine for EU policy may have contributed in large measure to the feeling by many countries and electorates that they were being excluded from the debate. "There is an advantage to the end of the Merkel-Sarkozy relationship in that it will open up room for new disputes, new ideas and new debate." Not least, she adds, over a necessary realignment in the relationship between democracy in the EU and the influence of the markets. "We are not talking growth versus austerity. The debate is over what kind of growth we need." And, she adds, over whether the targets in the fiscal compact are too tight. "We can't just save. We need to invest. The world isn't going to end if the 3% target is missed by a few points next year."

While some argue that a full-blown political crisis in Europe that leads to a rejection of the German-led austerity measures might force a crisis in Germany over Europe, Guérot believes that the most likely outcome is a renegotiation. "Merkel is a survivor and pragmatic. And I think Hollande knows that he will need an accommodation, too. If this fiscal compact falls – if there is a second version – it will have to be faced."

While analysts such as Guérot might be relaxed about such an outcome, for those politicians at the heart of the growing storm the stakes could not be higher. On Friday, in Dublin, it was the turn of Ireland's deputy prime minister Eamon Gilmore, whose Labour party has been crucified in opinion polls for its support for austerity, to use apocalyptic language, warning that Ireland would not have access to any alternative funding if next month's fiscal treaty is rejected.

The real question is whether Ireland's – or Europe's – voters, after years of pain, still have the stomach for this message

.--------------------------

THE ECONOMIST 28.4.2012

http://www.economist.com/node/21553487

Politics in Italy

What comes next

Who might succeed Mario Monti?

Apr 28th 2012 | ROME | from the print edition

ON APRIL 25th, as Italians were marking their liberation from Nazi occupation, their prime minister, Mario Monti, also evoked the spirit of 1945. Speaking after the latest euro panic to ravage Italian financial markets, he said Italians could get through the crisis if, rather like the partisans in the second world war, everybody worked “in the interests of the country and for the common good”.

His words had a special resonance, because one Italian politician has just floated the idea of a broad coalition to keep Mr Monti in power after next spring’s election. Pier Ferdinando Casini told La Repubblica that he hoped to involve others in a project to give “stability and growth to a country that is only now taking the right road”. His putative new movement, perhaps called the Party of the Nation, could tap a rich seam. Polls suggest that, despite the pain that Mr Monti has heaped on voters with spending cuts and tax rises, more than 50% still back him.

One snag is that Mr Monti has said repeatedly that he will step down at the end of this parliament’s term (he may have his eye on the Italian presidency or a senior European job). And it could be objected that Mr Casini’s plan for a grand coalition to keep in power an unelected prime minister is democratically questionable. It smacks more than a little of the old Christian Democrats who, by occupying the centre, dominated Italian politics for more than 40 years until they fell apart in a welter of corruption allegations in the early 1990s. Mr Casini and many of his followers are former Christian DemocratEven so, Mr Casini has raised an important question. What will fill the gap left by Mr Monti’s government? The answer might seem obvious: after a temporary suspension, the normal interplay of democratic politics should resume. But Italy’s professional politicians have been comprehensively discredited and embarrassed since Mr Monti came to power last November. The seriousness with which he and his team of professors, bankers and bureaucrats have tackled the country’s problems is one reason for this: the contrast with the bungling and buffoonery of Silvio Berlusconi’s government could scarcely be greater. But there are others.

Earlier this month the Northern League, which for years had boasted of its honesty and integrity, was devastated by allegations of shady dealings and the diversion of taxpayers’ money into its leaders’ pockets. It was the latest of several scandals that suggest Italian politics is as sleazy as ever. A recent survey found that only 20% of respondents think political parties should receive any public funds.

Even in strictly political terms, the parties offer a dismal spectacle. Those on the right are tarred with economic failure. Those on the left are split into three mutually antagonistic groups. No wonder a party that rejects all the others seems to be doing just fine. A poll for l’Espresso magazine on April 20th showed the Five Star Movement, led by the comedian and blogger Beppe Grillo, taking 7.5% of the national vote. His humorous, ranting brand of anti-politics is expected to bring him success at the first big test of public opinion since Mr Monti became prime minister, the local elections on May 6th and

.----------------------------------------

THE NEW YORK TIMES 24.4.2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/magazine/chairman-bernanke-should-listen-to-professor-bernanke.html?_r=1&hp

Earth to Ben Bernanke

Chairman Bernanke Should Listen to Professor Bernanke

Illustration by Kelsey Dake

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: April 24, 2012

When the financial crisis struck in 2008, many economists took comfort in at least one aspect of the situation: the best possible person, Ben Bernanke, was in place as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Luke Sharrett for The New York Times

Bernanke was and is a fine economist. More than that, before joining the Fed, he wrote extensively, in academic studies of both the Great Depression and modern Japan, about the exact problems he would confront at the end of 2008. He argued forcefully for an aggressive response, castigating the Bank of Japan, the Fed’s counterpart, for its passivity. Presumably, the Fed under his leadership would be different.

Instead, while the Fed went to great lengths to rescue the financial system, it has done far less to rescue workers. The U.S. economy remains deeply depressed, with long-term unemployment in particular still disastrously high, a point Bernanke himself has recently emphasized. Yet the Fed isn’t taking strong action to rectify the situation.

The Bernanke Conundrum — the divergence between what Professor Bernanke advocated and what Chairman Bernanke has actually done — can be reconciled in a few possible ways. Maybe Professor Bernanke was wrong, and there’s nothing more a policy maker in this situation can do. Maybe politics are the impediment, and Chairman Bernanke has been forced to hide his inner professor. Or maybe the onetime academic has been assimilated by the Fed Borg and turned into a conventional central banker. Whichever account you prefer, however, the fact is that the Fed isn’t doing the job many economists expected it to do, and a result is mass suffering for American workers.

What the Fed Can Do

The Federal Reserve has a dual mandate: price stability and maximum employment. It normally tries to meet these goals by moving short-term interest rates, which it can do by adding to or subtracting from bank reserves. If the economy is weak and inflation is low, the Fed cuts rates; this makes borrowing attractive, stimulates private spending and, if all goes well, leads to economic recovery. If the economy is strong and inflation is a threat, the Fed raises rates; this discourages borrowing and spending, and the economy cools off.

Right now, the Fed believes that it’s facing a weak economy and subdued inflation, a situation in which it would ordinarily cut interest rates. The problem is that rates can’t be cut further. When the recession began in 2007, the Fed started slashing short-term interest rates until November 2008, when they bottomed out near zero, where they remain to this day. And that was as far as the Fed could go, because (some narrow technical exceptions aside) interest rates can’t go lower. Investors won’t buy bonds if they can get a better return simply by putting a bunch of $100 bills in a safe. In other words, the Fed hit what’s known in economic jargon as the zero lower bound (or, alternatively, became stuck in a liquidity trap). The tool the Fed usually fights recessions with had reached the limits of its usefulness.

That doesn’t mean the Fed was out of options. Not according to the work of a number of economists, anyway, among them a prominent Princeton professor by the name of Ben Bernanke. As noted above, Bernanke was among the economists who took notice, back in the 1990s, of the troubles afflicting Japan — a huge real estate bubble that left behind a legacy of high private-sector debt when it burst and a central bank up against the zero lower bound.

The woes confronting the United States today aren’t identical to those faced by Japan. For one thing, Japanese inflation wasn’t just low; by the end of the 1990s, Japan was actually suffering chronic deflation. For another, Japan’s slump was never as terrible as ours; unemployment, in particular, never became the scourge it has become here. Still, Japan provided an example of how an advanced modern economy could seemingly be caught in an economic trap.

In a hard-hitting 2000 paper titled “Japanese Monetary Policy: A Case of Self-Induced Paralysis?” Bernanke declared that “far from being powerless, the Bank of Japan could achieve a great deal if it were willing to abandon its excessive caution and its defensive response to criticism.” He proceeded to lay out a number of actions the Bank of Japan could take. And he called on Japanese policy makers to act like F.D.R. and do whatever it took: “Japan is not in a Great Depression by any means, but its economy has operated below potential for nearly a decade. Nor is it by any means clear that recovery is imminent. Policy options exist that could greatly reduce these losses. Why isn’t more happening? To this outsider, at least, Japanese monetary policy seems paralyzed, with a paralysis that is largely self-induced. Most striking is the apparent unwillingness of the monetary authorities to experiment, to try anything that isn’t absolutely guaranteed to work. Perhaps it’s time for some Rooseveltian resolve in Japan.”

(Page 2 of 4)

Bernanke had some specific proposals that could serve as advice for the Fed today. One set of options would have it take a larger role in financial markets. Short-term interest rates may be zero, unable to go lower, but longer-term rates aren’t. So the Fed, which typically buys only short-term U.S. government debt, could expand its portfolio, buying long-term government debt, bonds backed by home mortgages and so on, in an effort to drive down the interest rates on these assets. This is the strategy that has come to be known, unhelpfully, as quantitative easing.

Another set of options involves trying to change expectations about future Fed policy. Right now, investors believe that the economy will eventually recover enough for the Fed to start raising rates again. Such expectations about future Fed plans, in turn, can have an important impact on the economy right now. In particular, beliefs about how long the Fed will wait before raising rates can have a major impact on expectations of future inflation. At the moment, investors assume that the Fed will raise rates enough to keep inflation from rising much above 2 percent. If the Fed were to raise its target for inflation — and if investors believed in the new target — expected inflation over the medium term, say the next 10 years, would be higher. Many economists, ranging from the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund to one of Mitt Romney’s top economic advisers, have argued, as I have, that higher expected inflation would aid an economy up against the zero lower bound, because it would help persuade investors and businesses alike that sitting on cash is a bad idea. Bernanke endorsed the idea in his “Paralysis” paper, suggesting that the Bank of Japan declare “a target in the 3-to-4-percent range for inflation, to be maintained for a number of years.”

So which of these steps has the Fed taken lately? Well, it has bought more than $2 trillion worth of long-term government debt and bonds of government-backed housing agencies. That sounds like a lot, but it’s much less than most analysts think necessary to jump-start economic recovery. The Fed has also tried to influence market expectations about future policy, but only for the fairly near term, declaring that it doesn’t expect to raise short-term rates until late 2014. What’s more, Bernanke has ruled out more ambitious policies. In 2010, for example, he dismissed the notion of a higher inflation target for the United States, arguing that it would undermine confidence and the Fed’s “hard-won inflation credibility.”

In short, Chairman Bernanke’s Fed has been much more passive than Professor Bernanke’s writings would have led us to expect.

Can the Fed Do No More?

Some economists and Fed officials believe that the Fed has already done all it can or should — that, in particular, high unemployment is structural, that it can’t be brought down simply by getting people to increase spending. They also warn that any further efforts by the Fed to boost the economy would simply drive up inflation instead. This is, however, a minority view both among economists and at the Fed.

Most stories about structural unemployment stress a perceived mismatch between the work force and employment opportunities: workers, so the story goes, either have the wrong skills or are in the wrong place. But as Bernanke pointed out in a recent speech, employment looks bad across the board: “The fact that labor demand appears weak in most industries and locations is suggestive of a general shortfall of aggregate demand rather than a worsening mismatch of skills and jobs.” As a result, he declared, the data “do not support the view that structural factors are a major cause of the increase in unemployment during the most recent recession.”

What about inflation? So-called headline inflation, a k a the Consumer Price Index, has fluctuated wildly — deflation during the worst of the recession, annualized inflation hitting a peak of almost 4 percent last September. These big swings are, however, driven mainly by fluctuations in the prices of raw materials, which Fed officials consider poor indicators of underlying inflationary pressures. They prefer, instead, to focus on measures like core inflation, which excludes volatile energy and food prices and which has remained fairly quiescent

(Page 3 of 4)

The Fed is right in this. Last year, many conservatives seized on rising headline inflation — driven mainly by increasing gasoline prices — as evidence of a looming inflation tsunami. Representative Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican, for example, pointed to rising prices of raw materials and said ominously, “There is nothing more insidious that a country can do to its citizens than debase its currency.” Fed officials, however, steadfastly predicted that the inflation surge would soon ebb, and it did.

So the Fed doesn’t think there are good reasons for high unemployment and isn’t worried about inflation. Indeed, the minutes from the January meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, which sets monetary policy, revealed that a majority of members expected an eventual fall in unemployment to below 6 percent, with inflation remaining low.

Think about what this means in terms of the dual mandate. The Fed is supposed to pump up the economy when it’s running too cold, with unemployment high and inflation low. That’s where we are right now, in the Fed’s own estimation. Yet the most recent minutes, from March, show Fed officials unwilling to take any further action to boost the economy.

Why won’t the Fed do more?

Political Bullying

When Fed critics interpreted a brief escalation in raw-material prices as evidence of out-of-control inflation last year, it was unusual only because for once the critics had some actual inflation to talk about. Since 2008, the Fed has faced constant attacks over its supposed inflationary actions, whether or not the actual data indicate the existence of runaway inflation. Some attacks have even bordered on menace, most famously Rick Perry’s warning that Bernanke would be treated “pretty ugly” if he visited Texas.

The effect must be somewhat intimidating. Recently N. Gregory Mankiw of Harvard University — an adviser to Mitt Romney who himself briefly advocated raising the inflation target but went quiet after receiving intense criticism — put it succinctly: “If Chairman Bernanke ever suggested increasing inflation to, say, 4 percent, he would quickly return to being Professor Bernanke.”

Maybe, then, Bernanke still wants higher inflation and other unconventional policies but knows that there’s no point in pursuing or even advocating them. But there are two problems with this supposition. First, that’s not the way the Fed is supposed to work. It’s meant to be insulated from political pressure — so why would people so calmly accept the notion that it could be pressed to avoid doing what it thinks it should do? Second, Bernanke has gone out of his way to insist that his current position reflects an economic judgment, not political compromise — that it’s all about preserving that “hard-won inflation credibility.”

I suspect that the old Bernanke would have scoffed. He would have pointed out that the Fed could still keep inflation within bounds — that 4 percent inflation (which is what we actually had during the late years of the Reagan administration) need be no more unsettling than 2 percent inflation. He would also, I suspect, have argued that the risks of losing credibility pale beside the risks of inaction. Bear in mind, whenever someone invokes the specter of a return to ’70s-style stagflation, when the economy is weak and inflation is high — a greatly overrated risk — that what we are going through now is much, much worse than anything that happened in the ’70s. It takes a certain mind-set to worry more about a hypothetical loss of confidence than about the clear and present suffering of the unemployed — the mind-set, one might say, of a conventional central banker.

The Fed as Borg

Recently Laurence Ball of Johns Hopkins University made waves among monetary economists by looking through Fed minutes to determine how and when Ben Bernanke’s views changed. According to Ball, Bernanke’s big retreat from F.D.R.-like resolve happened way back in 2003, less than a year after he arrived at the Fed. That month, a Fed staff report rejected many of the ideas Bernanke previously supported — and ever since, Bernanke has spoken only of limited responses to the problem of the zero lower bound. What’s puzzling about this apparent conversion is the fact that while Bernanke may have been a newbie at the Fed, he was a towering figure in his field. Why should he have taken his cues from a staff report?

(Page 4 of 4)

Ball emphasizes both the pressures of groupthink and Bernanke’s shy personality. Without necessarily disagreeing, I’d point to a crucial difference between the policies Bernanke advocated in his pre-Fed days and the ones he has supported since 2003. His Fed-era policies aren’t simply less ambitious than those of his academic era; just as important, Chairman Bernanke’s policy menu, unlike Professor Bernanke’s proposals, has been set up so that the Fed can’t be blamed for failure.

Suppose, for example, that the Fed announces a higher inflation target. It might not work: markets might not consider the Fed’s proclamations credible and believe instead that no matter what the Fed says now, it will return to its traditional focus on price stability. So an attempt to raise expected inflation could lead to an embarrassing failure. When buying government bonds, on the other hand, the Fed can always claim that the policy worked, even if the economy does poorly, because it can insist that things would have been even worse without its actions. So by retreating to a narrow definition of the Fed’s role, Bernanke has also adopted a position that is much more comfortable for the Fed as an institution.

Back in 2000, Professor Bernanke warned against exactly this kind of retreat, harshly criticizing the Bank of Japan’s unwillingness to “try anything that isn’t absolutely guaranteed to work.” But within a year of his arrival at the Fed, he seemed to have been assimilated by the Fed Borg, like Capt. Jean-Luc Picard in a famous “Star Trek” episode, converted into a half-robot servant of a hive-mind.

Bernanke may have pulled back from his earlier activism years ago, but given the scale of our economic catastrophe, he might well have returned to his earlier views if the political climate hadn’t been so hostile. So I wouldn’t fully discount the importance of right-wing bullying. As for his insistence that it’s not about politics — could he really get away with saying, or even hinting, that pressure from the likes of Paul Ryan is keeping him from pursuing full employment?

My best guess is that the disappointing response of the Bernanke Fed represents the effects of both bullies and the Borg, a combination of political intimidation and the desire to make life easy for the Fed as an institution. Whatever the mix of these motives, the result is clear: faced with an economy still in desperate need of help, the Fed is unwilling to provide that help. And that, unfortunately, makes the Fed part of a broader problem.

Consider, if you will, the current state of our nation. Despite hints of economic progress, we’re still in the midst of an immense disaster, in which unemployment and underemployment are devastating millions of American lives. And none of this need be happening! There has been no plague of locusts; we have not lost our technological know-how. Americans should be richer, not poorer, than they were five years ago. Yet economic policy across the board has become almost passive, has essentially accepted this disaster instead of trying to end it.

The Fed under Bernanke is by no means the worst sinner in this failure of intellect and will, and you can argue that Ben Bernanke has done a better job than anyone else who might have held his position. Yet the fact is, he has not done remotely enough. The Fed, under its eminent chairman, was supposed to be an important part of the solution to mass unemployment. That isn’t happening.

This article has been adapted from “End This Depression Now!” by Paul Krugman, to be published by W. W. Norton & Company this month.

Krugman is a Times columnist and winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in economics.

 -----------------------------------

EL  PAIS 21.4.2012

http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2012/04/21/actualidad/1335028608_277635.html

La crisis cercena vidas en Italia

Cada día un pequeño empresario y un trabajador se quitan la vida agobiados por las deudas y la falta de expectativa para superar las dificultades

Pablo Ordaz Roma 21 ABR 2012 - 19:46 CET130

La situación es tan dramática que, la noche del pasado miércoles, pequeños empresarios y trabajadores acudieron con velas al Panteón para exigir en silencio: “No más suicidios”. Unas horas antes, el propio Monti había admitido públicamente que la crisis está imponiendo “un precio altísimo a las familias, a los jóvenes, a los trabajadores… A veces con experiencias que se cierran en la desesperación”. En los últimos meses, raro es el día que los periódicos italianos no traen la noticia de un pequeño empresario que se arroja a las vías del tren, de un trabajador autónomo o de un desempleado que se ahorcan agobiados por las deudas y la falta de salida. Según Giuseppe Bortolussi, secretario general de Cgia di Mestre, una asociación de artesanos y pequeñas empresas, “para muchos de los que optan por quitarse la vida, el suicidio es un gesto de rebelión contra un sistema sordo e insensible que no acierta a entender la gravedad de la situación. Es un verdadero grito de alarma lanzado por quien ya no puede más”.

Hay un dato que a Bortolussi se le antoja dramáticamente representativo. De los 23 suicidios de pequeños empresarios registrados desde principios de 2012, el 40% pertenece al Veneto, la región del noreste de Italia que siempre ha sido un motor de desarrollo económico basado en la pequeña y mediana empresa. Los llamados “suicidios económicos” están provocados por un cóctel fatal formado por los rezagos de la vieja Italia y la nueva crisis global. “La lentitud de la burocracia, la dificultad para tratar con bancos y administraciones”, según se puso de manifiesto a la vera del Panteón, “se unen ahora a empresas endeudadas, pagos que se retrasan y jamás llegan… El pequeño empresario se ve abocado a despedir a personas con las que ha trabajado toda la vida, a verdaderos amigos, incluso a familiares… Intenta aguantar hasta que un día ya no puede resistirlo y…” Todo parece indicar que la situación seguirá agravándose. De ahí que al menos cinco asociaciones —desde Cáritas a organizaciones empresariales— ya hayan puesto en marcha servicios de ayuda psicológica a emprendedores y trabajadores en apuros. La más representativa, la que solo con el título lo dice todo, se creó el pasado lunes en Vigonza, en la provincia de Padua, a 25 kilómetros al oeste de Venecia. Su nombre: “Asociación de familiares de empresarios suicidados”.

El horizonte es muy oscuro. Sobre la mesa se van agolpando informes, el uno más pesimista que el otro. En los últimos tres meses, 146.000 empresas italianas echaron el cierre. Y el temporal no ha pasado. Según la asociación de comerciantes, 2012 será el peor año de la crisis y, según el Gobierno, hasta 2013 no se quebrará la tendencia. Desde el punto de vista del consumo, no se estaba tan mal desde los años de la posguerra. La mitad de las familias, dicho por el propio Monti, tienen problemas para salir adelante. Si en junio de 2011, el 28% de los italianos aún conseguía ahorrar algo al mes, ahora solo es un 9%. El 87% ya ha recortado en la cesta del supermercado y ya hay más de un millón y medio de familia abocadas a la caridad. No sería extraño, por tanto, que los datos de suicidios que arroja el último estudio de Eures —el portal europeo de la movilidad profesional— se llegaran a agravar: durante 2010 se suicidaron 362 desempleados y 336 empresarios o autónomos. Y eso que, entonces, ni la economía estaba tan mal ni existía todavía en Italia una nueva clase de desheredados, esos que aquí llaman esodati.

ampliar fotoVincenzo Sgroi es uno de ellos. Su caso ilustra muy bien la angustia de muchas familias. Es uno de los 500 prej   ubilados de La Posta, el servicio de correos que también actúa como caja de ahorros. Aceptó renunciar a la indemnización de 70.000 euros que le ayudaría a llegar hasta la jubilación a cambio de que uno de sus hijos tuviera la oportunidad de colocarse, fijo, en la empresa pública. Un sistema muy discutido por los sindicatos, que lo consideran medieval. En tanto, fueron llegando la crisis primero y el Gobierno de Monti después. Vincenzo se encontró con que el puesto fijo de su hijo es solo a tiempo parcial —15 días trabajando y 15 en casa— y que el sueldo no llega a los 700 euros. Pero lo más grave es que la reforma de las pensiones puesta en marcha por el nuevo Gobierno le ha alejado el horizonte de la jubilación. Cuando aceptó la prejubilación, solo le quedaba un año para jubilarse; ahora le quedan cuatro… Toda la impotencia se refleja en su rostro, en su pregunta: “¡¿Qué hago yo ahora?!”

 --------------------------

EL MUNDO 5.4.2012

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2012/04/05/navegante/1333606799.html

DERECHOS DE AUTOR | A instancia de la Comisión Europea

El Tribunal de la UE examinará el tratado antipiratería ACTA

Casi 2,5 millones de firmas de ciudadanos contra el ACTA. | Afp

• La decisión puede retrasar la entrada en vigor del pacto en toda la UE
• La Eurocámara se prepara para votar el acuerdo el próximo mes de mayo

Claire Davenport (Reuters) | Bruselas

Actualizado jueves 05/04/2012 08:20 horas

• Disminuye el tamaño del texto
• Aumenta el tamaño del texto

El Tribunal de la Unión Europea va a determinar si el polémico acuerdo mundial de lucha contra la 'piratería' y las vulneraciones de los derechos de autor ACTA colisiona con derechos fundamentales de los ciudadanos, incluido el derecho a la libertad de expresión, informó la Comisión Europea.

El órgano ejecutivo de la UE señaló que había enviado el texto del Acuerdo Comercial Anti-Falsificación (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, ACTA) al Tribunal Europeo de Justicia para su evaluación, como respuesta a las preocupaciones de que podría dañar ciertos derechos fundamentales.

Esta decisión puede complicar y retrasar la entrada en vigor del pacto en toda la UE.

El ACTA está respaldada por Estados Unidos y otros países, pero muchos países de la UE aún tienen que adoptar y otros, pese a haberlo firmado, están reconsiderando sus posiciones a la luz de las críticas sobre el contenido del tratado.

"La Comisión tiene como objetivo responder a las preocupaciones expresadas por personas de toda Europa en lo que el ACTA se refiere, y comprobar si perjudica a los derechos fundamentales de alguna manera", dijo el ejecutivo de la UE en un comunicado.

El comisario europeo de Comercio, Karel de Gucht, dijo que el Alto Tribunal aclararía de forma independiente la legalidad del acuerdo. "Teniendo en cuenta que decenas de miles de personas han expresado sus preocupaciones sobre el ACTA, es apropiado dar a nuestro mayor órgano judicial independiente tiempo para que emita su opinión jurídica sobre este acuerdo, y éste es un aporte importante al debate público europeo y democrático", dijo.

El Tribunal, con sede en Luxemburgo, puede tardar meses antes de emitir opiniones en estos casos.

Polémica con el ACTA

El pacto tiene como objetivo reducir el robo de la propiedad intelectual mediante la imposición de sanciones por acciones tales como el uso de marcas falsificadas y el intercambio digital a gran escala de archivos de cualquier contenido, desde programas informáticos 'pirateados' a música, cine o televisión.

Algunos políticos y activistas europeos temen que el acuerdo permitirá a las autoridades cortar el acceso a Internet a los presuntos infractores.

Sin embargo los partidarios del acuerdo, entre los que se encuentra la propia Comisión Europea, discuten este extremo e insisten en que sólo castigará los crímenes contra los derecho de autor a una escala comercial.

Está previsto que el Parlamento Europeo, que se ha mostrado escéptico sobre el acuerdo y cuyo respaldo es necesario para que se convierta en norma en la UE, vote sobre el asunto en mayo.

La Comisión, que originalmente negoció el acuerdo con países como Canadá, Australia, Estados Unidos, Japón y México, ya ha pedido a los parlamentarios que pospongan su voto hasta que el Tribunal haya tomado su decisión.

No obstante, David Martin, parlamentario laborista escocés que encabeza los debates sobre el ACTA, dijo que la intención es mantener la votación prevista para el 29 de mayo.

Los miembros de la Eurocámara votaron finalmente en contra de remitir el acuerdo a los Tribunales de la UE. "Estamos políticamente en contra de llevar el ACTA a la corte porque pensamos que debe ser rechazada de inmediato", dijo Jan Philipp Albrecht, parlamentario alemán del Partido Verde.

 --------------------------

THE GUARDIAN  2.4.2012

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/02/margot-honecker-east-germany-interview

Margot Honecker defends East German dictatorship

Widow of GDR leader Erich Honecker gives unapologetic interview in documentary showing her at home in Chile

• Kate Connolly in Berlin
• guardian.co.uk, Monday 2 April 2012 15.59 BST
• Article history

She was known as the "purple witch" for her arresting lilac rinses and tenacious political outlook. Now the widow of the former East German leader Erich Honecker has broken a 20-year silence to defend the dictatorship, attack those who helped to destroy it, and complain about her pension.

Margot Honecker, 84, who as education minister of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) served alongside her dictator husband, describes her homesickness for a "lost nation" and calls its demise a tragedy in an interview due to be broadcast on German television on Monday evening.

The documentary, which was years in the making due to Honecker's dogged insistence she would never give an interview to "West German" media, shows her at home in Chile where she escaped to with her husband after the collapse of the Berlin Wall in the early 1990s.

For the first time since 1989 Germans are given an insight into Honecker's life and a full-blown taste of her unforgiving views about a GDR that she continues to idealise. In shockingly frank exchanges in which she cuts a robust, vigorous figure, she defends East Germany to the hilt and refuses to accept any responsibility for its more tyrannical traits, including her own role as the minister responsible for thousands of forced adoptions.

"It is a tragedy that this land no longer exists," she tells the interviewer, Eric Friedler, adding that, while she lives in Chile "my head is in Germany". She does not, however, mean united Germany, rather the "better Germany" of the GDR.

Honecker dismisses in a single sentence the fate of hundreds of people who lost their lives trying to escape East Germany for a better life in the west.

"There was no need for them to climb over the wall, to pay for this stupidity with their lives," she says.

Asked why the revolution of 1989 took place if, as she claims, the country was such a good place to live, she suggests that the demonstrations were driven by the GDR's enemies. "The GDR also had its foes. That's why we had the Stasi," she says, referring to the country's repressive secret police.

Questions about the programme of forced adoptions of the children of regime opponents, for which she was responsible, are met with the response: "It didn't exist". Equally, the economic demise of the GDR "is simply untrue", and she describes victims of the regime as "criminals who today make out that they were political victims", who were in some cases "paid". Does she have any feelings of guilt? "It didn't touch me at all. I have a thick skin."

Friedler said that over the several days he interviewed her, Honecker, who during her 26-year tenure as education minister introduced weapons training to schools, and ordered every teacher to report all incidences of deviation by pupils from the communist line, remained bizarrely detached from reality and resolute in her defence of East Germany.

"Margot Honecker showed no remorse, or discernment, she expressed no word of regret or apology," he said.

"She might be in Chile, but she is very well connected to a whole guard of old comrades. She regularly spends hours reading the internet, knows exactly what's going on in Germany, but says her desire for Germany is restricted to … the GDR."

She also takes the opportunity to complain about her €1,500 state pension which she receives every month from Germany, calling it "derisory".

Honecker predicted the socialist Germany for which she and her husband, who died of cancer in 1994, fought for, would have its chance again. "We laid a seed in the ground which will one day come to fruition," she says. "We just didn't have enough time to realise our plans."

       --------------------------

       THE WALL STREET JOURNAL   26.3.2012

         http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577305240774653740.html?mod=WSJEurope_hps_MIDDLE_Video_second

       REVIEW & OUTLOOK               Updated March 26, 2012, 7:00 p.m. ET

  Monti Pulls a Thatcher

The Italian PM's labor market reform shows political courage.

Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti has walked away from negotiations with Italy's labor unions and announced that he is going to move ahead with reforming the country's notorious employment laws—with or without union consent. If Rome is spared the fate that recently befell Athens, mark this as the week the turnaround began.

Italy's labor laws are some of the most restrictive in the Western world. The totemic Article 18 all but bans companies with more than 15 employees from involuntarily dismissing workers, regardless of the severance offered. Mr. Monti has proposed replacing this job-for-life scheme with a generous system of guaranteed severance when employees are dismissed for "economic reasons."

In most of the free world, this would count as a useful, albeit mild, reform. Among other weaknesses, the new law would not affect a worker's right to challenge his dismissal in court when fired for disciplinary reasons—an unreciprocated gift to the unions.

But standing up to Italy's labor unions takes courage, and not only of the political sort. Ten years ago this month economist Marco Biagi was gunned down by left-wing terrorists for his role in designing a previous attempt at labor reform. Mr. Monti's move has prompted calls for a general strike from CGIL, Italy's largest union confederation.

Since coming to power in November, Mr. Monti has passed some measures by emergency decree, bypassing parliament. On Friday, however, he announced that the labor-law changes would be voted through the National Assembly in the normal way.

This, too, is politically courageous. The center-left Democratic Party—an ally of the CGIL and one of the three main political blocs supporting Mr. Monti's grand coalition—has called the reform unacceptable. A split in the coalition could doom both the reform and Mr. Monti's government. The alternative is to pass the law over Democratic Party opposition, which would saddle Mr. Monti with former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's base of right-of-center support.

That prospect probably doesn't thrill Mr. Monti. But holding a vote is also right. Italy's labor laws have been a fixture of economic life for decades. Successful—and lasting—reform won't be accomplished by decree, but by demonstrating that the changes enjoy a popular mandate.

Mr. Monti has three chief advantages over his recent predecessors. He remains popular in Italy. He also says he doesn't intend to run for re-election. This gives him a chance to maintain control over his reforms as they move toward a parliamentary vote.

More importantly, Mr. Monti—a former economics professor—has a rare opportunity to educate Italians on the consequences of opposing reform. This won't require sophisticated explanations of why employers will still employ people even when the law does not force them to do so. He can merely ask Italians to look across the Ionian Sea. If that doesn't scare them sober, then nothing will help.

Postwar Italian politics has chewed up more than a few would-be reformers while career politicians and union leaders enjoy the spoils of power. The difference with Mr. Monti is that he didn't take this job to be a caretaker PM. If he means to make his current reform the first, not last, step in a more ambitious agenda for reviving Italian growth, he could make his one term in office a great one.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page 11

A version of this article appeared Mar. 27, 2012, on page A12 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Monti Pulls a Thatcher.

 ----------------------------------------

THE ECONOMIST  24.3.2012

 http://www.economist.com/node/21551046

 Italy’s reforms

Monti’s labour-law tangle

The government of Mario Monti is pressing ahead with labour reforms over union objections and threats of strikes

Mar 24th 2012 | ROME | from the print edition

SOMETHING unItalian happened late on March 20th. Mario Monti, the prime minister, was trying to persuade employers and unions to accept labour-market reforms. In the past, the usual result has been all-night talks ending in a document so content-free that allthat all sides accept it. This time, when it became clear that unanimity was impossible, Mr Monti declared the talks over and said his government would press ahead regardless.

A last-ditch meeting was planned for March 22nd, but the chances of getting Italy’s biggest trade union federation, the CGIL, to agree seem negligible. Indeed, the CGIL now threatens a one-day nationwide strike and another eight hours of disruptive assemblies. Its gripe is changes in the dismissal law. Today firms with more than 15 workers cannot get rid of employees even in a downturn without risking legal proceedings that can last years. If a judge then decides the company has acted unfairly, it can be forced to rehire the worker and pay him his lost earnings. Employers say this is a colossal deterrent to hiring when times are good, and helps to explain why a third of Italy’s youths are jobless.

The government wants workers sacked for economic reasons to get up to 27 months’ pay, but no prospect of regaining their jobs. The existing provisions would remain only for cases of alleged discrimination or victimisation. It would be up to the courts to decide if workers unfairly sacked on disciplinary grounds should be compensated or reinstated. Other planned measures would do even more to loosen Italy’s arthritic labour market: a new, more broadly applicable unemployment benefit and measures to encourage apprenticeships rather than intermittent short-term contracts.

President Giorgio Napolitano has warned that failure to agree would have serious consequences. Mr Monti faces his sternest test since he formed his technocratic government to replace Silvio Berlusconi’s in November. But he enjoys the backing of the three biggest parliamentary groups. On March 16th their leaders endorsed the government’s plans. The CGIL’s intransigence creates a special problem for one of them, its historic ally, the centre-left Democratic Party (PD). A senior PD official said its leader, Pier Luigi Bersani, could face a backbench revolt or a party split. The votes of the right and centre-right would be enough to pass the new reform, but one of Mr Monti’s strengths is his cross-party backing and he will not want to be seen as a stooge of the conservatives.

Outside parliament, there is a danger that protests against the reform could turn violent, and not just on the streets. This week saw the tenth anniversary of the assassination of Marco Biagi, the expert behind a previous attempt to make it easier for employers to sack surplus workers. He was murdered by the far-left New Red Brigades, as was a previous adviser on labour reform. In January postal workers intercepted envelopes containing bullets addressed to Mr Monti’s welfare minister, Elsa Fornero. This week a protester was seen in a T-shirt bearing the slogan “Fornero to the cemetery”.

But evidence of a credible threat from far-left wing terrorists is scarce. And Mr Monti remains hugely popular. On March 19th a poll in the newspaper La Repubblica said the government’s approval rating, which dipped after it began implementing its programme, had recovered sharply to almost 62%. The same poll found that a party headed by Mr Monti would get more votes than either the PD or the centre-right People of Freedom movement, founded by Mr Berlusconi.

Mr Monti, who plans a roadshow to promote Italy, said that the latest reform would clear away the last obstacles to inward investment. That is an exaggeration. Leaving aside such disincentives as pervasive corruption, maddening bureaucracy and organised crime, there is the question whether the government’s plans for the labour market will do enough to stimulate the growth Italy has so woefully failed to generate. Even some centre-left economists criticise the limited nature of the labour-market changes. Others worry that the welfare reforms will take effect only in 2017, creating a danger that they might be scrapped or diluted by a future government. An election must be held next year and Mr Monti has said he will not run.

Yet whatever the merits of his latest reforms, they set a precedent. Italians have glimpsed a style of government that does not aim for consensus, and that acknowledges opinions but not vetoes. Paradoxically, it has taken a mildly spoken economics professor to give Italy the political leadership it has lacked for so long.

from the print edition | Europe

 .----------------------------------------

 BILD   22.3.2012

     Interview mit EZB-Chef Mario Draghi zur Euro-Krise

   „Deutschland ist ein Vorbild“

http://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/mario-draghi/deutschland-ist-ein-vorbild-23270668.bild.html

Ein besonderes Geschenk für den neuen EZB-Chef: eine originalpreußische Pickelhaube von 1871 – überreicht von den BILD-Redakteuren Kai Diekmann (l.) und Nikolaus Blome. Grund: Der Helm soll den Italiener an preußische Tugenden erinnern. Mario Draghi nahm es mit Humor ...

Foto: Holde Schneider 22.03.2012 — 00:53 Uhr

Von NIKOLAUS BLOME und KAI DIEKMANN

BILD: Als vor einem Jahr klar war, dass Sie – ein Italiener – Chef der Europäischen Zentralbank werden, gab es in BILD eine freche Fotomontage: Sie mit einer Pickelhaube auf dem Kopf. Wir machten Sie zu einem echten Deutschen. Wie fanden Sie das?

Mario Draghi: „Mir hat das gut gefallen. Das Preußische ist ein gutes Symbol für den wichtigsten Auftrag der EZB: Preisstabilität zu wahren und die europäischen Sparer zu beschützen.“

BILD: Für die Deutschen muss ein Zentralbankchef strikt gegen Inflation sein, unabhängig von der Politik und für einen starken Euro. In diesem Sinne: Wie deutsch sind Sie?

Draghi: „Das sind tatsächlich deutsche Tugenden. Aber jeder Zentralbanker in der Euro-Zone sollte diese haben.“

BILD: Der französische Staatspräsident sagt, Europa müsse vom deutschen Vorbild lernen ...

Draghi: „... da hat er recht. Ich habe das schon lange vor ihm gesagt: Deutschland ist ein Vorbild. Das alte europäische Sozialstaats-Modell ist nämlich tot, weil es viel zu oft nicht ohne Schulden auskam. Die Deutschen haben es neu erfunden – ohne übermäßige Schulden.“

BILD: Haben Sie eine Botschaft für die Deutschen?

Draghi: „Macht weiter so!“

BILD: Typisch deutsch ist auch die ständige Angst vor Geldentwertung, Inflation. Können Sie das verstehen?

Draghi: „Die Deutschen haben im 20. Jahrhundert schreckliche Erfahrungen mit Inflation gemacht. Sie vernichtet Werte und macht das Planen unmöglich. Mehr noch: Sie kann die Gesellschaft eines Landes regelrecht zersetzen.“

BILD: Warum lassen Sie als EZB-Präsident dann zu, dass in der Eurozone gegenwärtig 2,7 Prozent Inflation herrschen, deutlich mehr, als es das Ziel der EZB ist?

Draghi: „Moment. Wenn man den Ölpreis und die jüngsten Steuererhöhungen vieler Regierungen berücksichtigt, liegen wir seit Monaten stabil bei 1,5 Prozent. Sollten sich die Inflationsaussichten verschlechtern, werden wir sofort vorbeugend eingreifen. Und schauen Sie auf die Fakten, die sprechen für sich selbst. Die durchschnittliche jährliche Inflationsrate ist seit dem Bestehen der EZB besser als in irgendeinem vergleichbaren Zeitraum vor der Euro-Einführung.“

BILD: In zwei Schüben hat die EZB fast eine Billion Euro in Umlauf gebracht. Das schürt doch Inflation?

Draghi: „Die Banken, denen die EZB das Geld geliehen hat, haben es zu großen Teilen nicht in den Wirtschaftskreislauf eingespeist, sondern damit alte Verbindlichkeiten abgelöst. Deshalb ist das Geld mit Blick auf Inflation gleichsam neutralisiert. Dieser Vorgang schürt nicht die Inflation. Und wir werden sehr genau beobachten, ob und wie das Geld in den Wirtschaftskreislauf eingespeist wird.“

BILD: Der deutsche Bundesbankchef Jens Weidmann warnt aber drastisch vor dieser Geldschwemme.

Draghi: „Mit Jens Weidmann verstehe ich mich beruflich und persönlich sehr gut. Unsere Meinungsverschiedenheit ist aufgebauscht worden.“

BILD: Hat Herr Weidmann seine Sorgen übertrieben?

Draghi: „Er ist ein typischer Notenbanker wie wir alle. Wir machen uns gern Sorgen über Dinge, über die sich sonst niemand Sorgen macht. Und natürlich gibt es Risiken und Nebenwirkungen, wenn Sie ein derart starkes Medikament einsetzen, wie es die knappe Billion Euro Zentralbankgeld war. Darauf hat Jens Weidmann zu Recht hingewiesen und ich bin mit ihm einer Meinung.“

BILD: Gibt es einen Riss zwischen Nord- und Südländern im EZB-Rat?

Draghi: „Nein, da gibt es keinen Graben zwischen Norden und Süden. Alle Mitglieder des EZB-Rates haben die deutsche Stabilitätskultur verinnerlicht. Die Zeit der Konflikte ist vorbei. Aber ich sage Ihnen auch: Im Herbst vergangenen Jahres war die Situation wirklich kritisch. Es hätte zu einer gefährlichen Kreditklemme bei den Banken kommen können und damit zu Pleiten von Unternehmen, die plötzlich finanziell auf dem Trockenen gesessen hätten. Das mussten wir verhindern.“

BILD: Jetzt machen die Banken ein dickes Geschäft, oder?

Draghi: „Das Geld der EZB ist an die richtigen Stellen gekommen. Allein aus Deutschland haben 460 Banken an der Aktion teilgenommen, weit mehr als üblich. Es waren also nicht nur die akut Not leidenden Banken, sondern auch viele, viele kleine darunter. Das hilft vor allem den kleinen und mittleren Firmen, die für 70 Prozent aller Arbeitsplätze in Europa stehen.“

BILD: Das klingt alles sehr optimistisch. Ist der Euro also eine sichere Währung?

Draghi: „Ja, das ist er!“

BILD: Ist die Krise vorüber?

Draghi: „Das Schlimmste ist vorüber, aber es gibt auch noch Risiken. Die Lage stabilisiert sich. Die wichtigen Kennzahlen der Euro-Zone, wie Inflation, Leistungsbilanz und vor allem Haushaltsdefizite, sind besser als z. B. in den USA. Das Vertrauen der Investoren kehrt zurück und die EZB hat seit Wochen keine Staatsanleihen mehr zur Stützung kaufen müssen. Der Ball liegt jetzt bei den Regierungen. Sie müssen die Euro-Zone dauerhaft krisenfest machen.“

BILD: Wenn Sie heute Geburtstag hätten, was wäre Ihr Wunsch an die Bundesregierung und die Kanzlerin?

Draghi: „Vertrauen in die EZB. Vertrauen in Europa.“

Morgen Teil 2: Ist Griechenland ein Fass ohne Boden, Herr Draghi?

.-----------------------------------------

LE FIGARO   19.3.2012

 http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2012/03/18/01003-20120318ARTFIG00196-nouvelle-vague-de-refugies-sur-les-cotes-de-lampedusa.php   

.----------------------------------------

LE FIGARO   16.3.2012

 http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2012/03/16/01016-20120316ARTFIG00683-concordia-apres-le-drame-le-tourisme.php

.-----------------------------------------

THE NEW YORK TIMES  12.3.2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/world/europe/merkel-offers-defense-of-her-policy-on-energy.html?_r=1&ref=world

Merkel Defends Germany’s Nuclear Power Deadline

By MELISSA EDDY

Published: March 12, 2012

BERLIN — Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany defended over the weekend her government’s decision to phase out nuclear power by 2022 and replace it with renewable energy sources, dismissing critics who said the government would never make the deadline.

Ms. Merkel made the decision nearly a year ago after a devastating earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011, caused a meltdown at a nuclear plant in Fukushima, Japan. The accident heightened anxieties about nuclear safety around the world, and set off new soul-searching about the wisdom of relying on nuclear power.

Weeks after the tsunami, Ms. Merkel’s government had already taken the nation’s oldest eight reactors off line; it decided in June that the remaining nine would follow over the next 11 years. But members of the opposition and environmental organizations say the government has not moved quickly enough to meet Germany’s target of drawing 35 percent of its energy from renewable sources. Last year, the total was 20 percent.

The critics directed much of their fire at the nation’s distribution grid, which they said was incapable of transporting enough renewable energy from wind farms in the north to the industrial heartland in the south. They doubted the problems with the grid could be addressed by 2022.

“After deciding to exit nuclear energy, it seems as if Ms. Merkel’s coalition stopped its work,” said Sigmar Gabriel, a former environment minister and the leader of the opposition Social Democrats. “There is great danger that this project will fail, with devastating economic and social consequences.”

Ms. Merkel conceded in her weekly podcast that, “of course, we need a lot of new investment” for the plan to be carried out. But she insisted that her decision was the right choice.

Legislation to expand the energy grid will be given “absolute priority” and passed in June, she said.

But even German business groups, normally allies of the chancellor, say more needs to be done. “For the energy transformation to succeed, a lot more needs to happen,” said Markus Kerber, the head of the Association of German Industry. He stressed that a critical factor would be integrating the new power sources, whether wind or solar, into the existing network.

Germany also has support from its southern neighbor Austria, which voted against pursuing atomic energy in 1974 and has been a vocal opponent ever since. Werner Faymann, the Austrian chancellor, said in an interview published on Monday that he expected to see a push beginning this year in at least six European Union countries to phase out nuclear energy.

“The goal is a Europe-wide exit from nuclear energy,” Mr. Faymann told the newspaper Österreich. “I expect the petition drive will start in at least six EU countries in autumn.”

But not all European Union countries are as eager to end their reliance on nuclear power as Germany is. Britain and France, as well as new members like Poland and the Czech Republic, remain committed to nuclear power as energy prices rise.

So far, the switch from nuclear to renewable energy has widespread support among the German public. In a recent survey by the Wahlen research group for the public broadcaster ZDF, 76 percent of Germans said they supported the move, with the majority saying the tempo was either “just right” or “too slow.” The survey questioned about 1,250 Germans and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

.-----------------------------------------

THE NEW YORK TIMES  12.3.2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/world/middleeast/britain-to-join-obama-in-discouraging-israeli-strike-on-iran.html?ref=world

Britain to Join Obama in Discouraging a Strike on Iran

By MARK LANDLER and JOHN F. BURNS

Published: March 12, 2012

-------------------------------------

EL PAIS .22.2012

 http://sociedad.elpais.com/sociedad/2012/02/22/actualidad/1329913536_647673.html 

 ENTREVISTA CON BILL GATES

"La ayuda debe ir a los más pobres, no a países con ingresos medios como Perú"

El fundador de Microsoft y filántropo pide a Rajoy que mantenga el nivel de ayuda y cooperación

En una entrevista con EL PAÍS reflexiona sobre la crisis y las rigideces del mercado laboral español

/ Luis Almodóvar (Video) / Álvaro de la Rúa (Video) Madrid 22 FEB 2012 - 1Lydia Aguirre / Berna González Harbour8:00 CET

Preparar una entrevista con Bill Gates es una de las tareas más estimulantes que puede abordar un periodista. Obliga a romper los habituales compartimentos estancos y a saber de millonarios, de Microsoft, de impuestos, de Gobiernos y de recesión, pero también de polio, de malaria y de buscadores de Internet. El segundo hombre más rico del mundo (perdió el podio de Forbes tras las cuantiosas donaciones que dirige con criterios de eficiencia empresarial); el hombre que más impactó en nuestras vidas al hacer posible la revolución del ordenador personal; el empresario hecho a sí mismo, se ocupa hoy de trabajar para que la crisis no devore los fondos destinados a cooperación. Como presidente de la Fundación Gates, con 33.000 millones de dólares (casi 25.000 millones de euros) puestos de su propio bolsillo, pide a España algo sencillo: primero, que mantenga la ayuda; segundo, que la destine a los más necesitados y no a países de ingresos medios como, por ejemplo, Perú. Gates ha visitado hoy EL PAÍS, donde ha desayunado con Coca Cola light.

- Pregunta. Usted pide a la comunidad internacional que mantenga el nivel de ayudas a pesar de la crisis. ¿Teme un gran paso atrás en este terreno?

- Respuesta. La generosidad continúa en general en alza y eso marca una gran diferencia, porque significa más vacunas para más niños, menos gente muriendo y nuevas semillas, pero aún hay mil millones de personas viviendo en tales condiciones de dureza que, si las tuviéramos cerca, no podríamos más que ayudarles. El gran desafío es que esos pobres no queden olvidados por las dificultades financieras. El dinero que les permite vivir es menos del 1% de nuestros presupuestos. Y el peligro es que sea recortado aún más que otras partidas del presupuesto. Eso supone literalmente menos vacunas, menos semillas o menos medicinas contra el sida, y todo ello para equilibrar el presupuesto de los países más ricos. Para que el dinero sea destinado adecuadamente y tenga un impacto real en la gente, debe ir a aquellos que más lo necesitan. Debemos asegurarnos de que el dinero va a los países pobres, donde puede tener un efecto contundente, y no a los de ingresos medios. Tenemos mucho que hacer para que la gente se sienta reconocida por la ayuda que concede, que sepan lo importante que es mantenerla.

- P. Se va a reunir con el nuevo presidente, Mariano Rajoy. ¿Cuál es su mensaje para él, en unos tiempos de fuertes recortes de nuestros propios presupuestos?

- R. Yo simplemente me presento como alguien que destina miles de millones de mi propio dinero a todo esto y lo que intento es compartir las historias de éxito. España financia vacunas y el impacto de estas ayudas por cada euro es 20 veces superior en los países más pobres que el que puede tener el dinero destinado a tu propio país. Así que mi punto de vista es que debe destinarse hasta el 1% del presupuesto a los que más lo necesitan. Sé que ahora mismo [el presidente] tiene muchas prioridades, son tiempos duros, pero si quiere destinar ese 1% y enfocarlo en las grandes necesidades, el impacto será altísimo. Incluso en tiempos duros, los contribuyentes pueden sentirse muy satisfechos por su papel en el mundo.

- P. Habla de los países más necesitados. ¿Considera entonces que América Latina no debería ser el objetivo prioritario de la ayuda española?

- R. Cuando ayudas a países como Perú, un país de ingresos medios, con 10.000 dólares de renta per cápita (unos 7.500 euros), mientras hay niños muriendo de malaria y gente que no consigue medicinas para el sida, el resultado es bastante diferente. Cuando ayudas a este tipo de países con un nivel suficiente de riqueza debes preguntarte por qué, por qué le ayudas. La ayuda debería ser para los más pobres. La Comisión Europea, por ejemplo, ha decidido dar menos ayuda a países de ingresos medios y esa es una gran decisión. Lo importante es que todas las vidas tienen igual valor y que podemos cambiar muchas más cosas en países pobres que cuando ayudas a un país como Perú, con ingresos medios, que tiene sus recursos que explotar y que podría ser tan rico como un país europeo. Marruecos tiene minerales y mucho dinero si lo comparas con Chad, Mozambique, Sudán o Etiopía. Lo que puedes conseguir es muy diferente. Históricamente la ayuda estaba mezclada con la amistad. Estados Unidos ayudaba a países que podían malgastarla, pero si era un amigo no había problema. Afortunadamente con el fin de la Guerra Fría ese tipo de ayuda ya se acabó y ahora puedes decir que cada euro que gastamos tiene un impacto humanitario: está alimentando a un niño, permitiéndole nutrirse para que su cerebro se desarrolle con plenitud, y la lucha contra la malaria lleva también ese camino. Esas son las prioridades del mundo. Un país como Perú está luchando bien contra la malaria sin ayuda exterior.

- P. Hay un debate sobre la efectividad de la ayuda. ¿Cómo se gasta mejor?

- R. Si tomas un país que tiene grandes necesidades críticas en salud, agua, agricultura y medicinas puedes tener un impacto muy radical haciendo llegar las vacunas a los niños, las medicinas contra el sida a los adultos, las redes antimosquito o enseñando a los granjeros a usar unas semillas nuevas que van a funcionar incluso cuando hay sequía para ser así más productivo. Me siento muy satisfecho con los resultados de los miles de millones que he puesto en todo esto. Yo puedo visitar estos lugares, contratar a los mejores científicos y veo los resultados. Sí, estamos mejorando la vida en estos países muy rápidamente, y si los ciudadanos y los políticos pudieran viajar y comprobar lo que está pasando en Chad, Kenia y Tanzania, verían que son lugares donde las cosas han cambiado mucho, donde han descendido las muertes por malaria de forma espectacular, y donde los padres no mueren de sida dejando huérfanos y más inestabilidad. Esta es una historia muy positiva y no se puede hacer ayudando a países de ingresos medios, pero sí a los que más lo necesitan.

- P. Hablando de historias de éxito, ¿cuándo cree que podremos ver la vacuna contra el sida?

- R. Ese campo de la investigación científica tiene grandes problemas de financiación. España sí ha ayudado en ese terreno y espero que se mantenga porque hace falta dinero para hacer esta labor. Hay mucha investigación en tuberculosis y malaria que se hace aquí en España, en Tres Cantos; hay una vacuna contra la tuberculosis en España, que es fantástica; hay un grupo en Barcelona a las órdenes de Pedro Alonso que trabaja contra la malaria y que es genial. Y es realmente esa financiación de I+D la que nos proporciona las nuevas herramientas. Esperamos tener una vacuna contra la malaria dentro de unos años. Una vacuna contra el sida va a tardar entre seis y 10 años en llegar, nuestra Fundación es un gran patrocinador. Esperamos que España siga con su apoyo a la I+D, que sí formó parte de su presupuesto en los últimos cuatro años.

- P. El modelo europeo contra la crisis pasa por la austeridad y el control del déficit. El de Estados Unidos apuesta por políticas de crecimiento. Como empresario, ¿cree que Europa será capaz de superar la crisis con este modelo?

- R. Es una situación compleja y ojalá los economistas entendieran mejor su asignatura. Cómo tener las deudas bajo control, bancos solventes y aun así lograr que crezca la economía es una especie de fórmula mágica que busca la gente, hasta ahora sin mucho éxito. Está claro que las políticas de crecimiento son deseables, pero ¿cómo encaja eso con una eventual eliminación de la deuda? Los políticos y economistas deben trabajar en esto, que no es fácil de resolver.

- P. ¿Qué opina de los tecnócratas, los nuevos gobernantes en países como Italia o Grecia?

- R. Yo voto por los tecnócratas siempre que puedo. Cuando las cosas son muy complicadas -y la situación que mejor conozco es la de EE UU- ves que hay muchas prácticas regulatorias que han estado muy protegidas y que hacen que la economía sea menos eficiente, por ejemplo para médicos, fármacos y muchos servicios, y esas ineficiencias nunca se resuelven en el ámbito puramente político porque esa gente guarda con especial celo su estatus especial. Pero un tecnócrata llega y puede hacer una serie de cosas que pueden beneficiar a la economía, tomar decisiones difíciles. Hay muchos temas de regulación en los mercados laboral y de servicios que cuando se resuelven son muy importantes para crear oportunidades de crecimiento. ¿Pero cuánto de esto podrá aprovechar un país europeo en concreto? Por ejemplo, un país como Irlanda nunca ha tenido tantos problemas en la regulación de los mercados y tuvo un desastre extremo en su sector bancario. ¿Por qué se les considera más creíbles? Probablemente porque sus mercados están menos sobreregulados que los de otras zonas de Europa, y eso es lo que hace que, entre todos los países endeudados, se les vea como los que tienen el camino más fácil para volver a la normalidad.

- P. Bajo esa perspectiva, ¿cree que la liberalización del mercado laboral que acaba de anunciar el Gobierno español es lo más adecuado para resolver el persistente problema de paro que tiene España?

- R. Ustedes tienen una tasa de paro peor que la de cualquier otro país y claramente esto es por algo. En algún punto del mercado laboral o del sector educativo hay algún problema. No soy un experto en España pero, en general, las mejores soluciones a largo plazo siempre acarrean dolor a corto plazo en términos de los mercados. ¿Cuál es la forma de hacerlo? No soy un tecnócrata que haya estudiado la situación de España, pero hay una oportunidad probablemente histórica de tomar decisiones difíciles para ganar algo de la fluidez que caracteriza los mercados laborales de Irlanda, Reino Unido o Estados Unidos.

- P. En España nos encontramos con muchos jóvenes muy cualificados que afrontan su futuro sin trabajo, sin esperanza, sin oportunidades. Como modelo de hombre hecho a sí mismo, ¿qué mensaje les transmitiría?, ¿dónde están las respuestas?

- R. Es muy extraño. ¿Por qué no han bajado aquí los sueldos? Si tienes una fábrica que produce carbón y nadie lo compra está claro que el precio de tu carbón es demasiado alto y hay que bajarlo. Tienes toda esa mano de obra disponible, pero hay algo muy raro en que el precio no se ajuste para permitir a otros países instalarse aquí, porque está claro que estos trabajadores están dispuestos a trabajar. Ese nivel de desempleo nos indica que hay rigideces importantes operando en el mercado. Puedes mirar hacia las universidades y preguntarte si la formación es tan sólida como debería ser, pero no creo que esta sea la razón. Estoy de acuerdo en que este asunto es la prioridad número uno de España, incluso más que ese 1% de ayudas para los pobres.

- P. La gente ve que los ricos son cada vez más ricos y los pobres más pobres. ¿Hay que cambiar las reglas?

- R. El mundo es muy grande y se está haciendo mucho más equitativo porque los países pobres se están haciendo más ricos más rápidamente que lo que progresan los países ricos. La mejora de la calidad de vida en grandes poblaciones como India y China refleja que la igualdad en los ingresos desde un punto de vista global es mucho mejor hoy que en cualquier otro momento de la historia y conforme pasa el tiempo se llega a una situación más equitativa. Eso es algo bueno. Las ventajas de la innovación están más extendidas, y cuando tienes a más gente inventando productos nuevos como fármacos para el cáncer o software, esto es un beneficio global, y no tiene por qué venir acompañado de una alta tasa de paro. El paro es un tema estructural. Hay trabajos de sobra, en la enseñanza, el turismo, la ciencia o la asistencia a los ancianos. Sobra trabajo, pero es una cuestión de estructurarlo de forma correcta.

- P. ¿Es el impuesto a las transacciones financieras una solución?

- R. Está claro que algún tipo de impuesto sobre las transacciones financieras podría ayudar en parte a bajar los déficits, y si una parte fuera dedicado a mantener el apoyo a los más pobres, incluso ahora en medio de la crisis, eso sería algo de agradecer. Irónicamente, hay un tipo de impuesto sobre las transacciones financieras, que en Reino Unido llaman de otra forma, el Settlement Tax, que grava fuertemente la compraventa de acciones. Así que hay muchas posibilidades, pero lo que no quieres hacer es distorsionar excesivamente el mercado. Y una vez puestas las tasas la pregunta es: ¿A qué destinar este dinero? Son fondos gubernamentales. Se puede usar para pagar la deuda, estimular la economía doméstica o para mantener ese 1% que impide que la gente muera porque has dejado de comprarles una red antimosquito.

- P. El impuesto propuesto por el millonario Warren Buffett de gravar con un 30% a los más ricos, ¿es una solución?

- R. Los impuestos varían mucho de país a país. En EE UU son algo regresivos porque el porcentaje que pagan los ricos es menor que el de quienes no lo son. Eso es un sistema atípico y es porque los impuestos sobre dividendos son más bajos que sobre los sueldos. Podrías dejar los dos tipos en el mismo nivel, y sería menos regresivo. La propuesta de Buffett, que me parece bien, dice que los más ricos deberían pagar un 30%. Eso no sería suficiente para equilibrar el presupuesto estadounidense. Hay que hacer algo más que perseguir a los muy ricos. Tienes que abrir el abanico de los que pagan impuestos para equilibrar las cosas. Pero la regla Buffett es un paso positivo. Lo ideal sería conseguir que todo el mundo hiciera el sacrificio a la vez, no introducir la regla Buffet de forma aislada, sino hacerlo al mismo tiempo que se subieran también los impuestos de forma moderada para la clase media y media-alta.

 EL  PAIS 21.2.2012

http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2012/02/20/actualidad/1329771586_792156.html 

Wikileaks, epílogo

Wikileaks no ha sido el preludio de una nueva era de transparencia digital

Bill Keller 21 FEB 2012 - 19:18 CET45

 Esta parece ser la venganza de Julian Assange: todos los que riñen con la estrella de las filtraciones están condenados a pasar la eternidad debatiendo el significado cósmico de Wikileaks. En mi calidad de director de The New York Times durante la publicación de numerosos artículos basados en el tesoro de secretos militares y diplomáticos, y por ser el afortunado a quien el fundador de Wikileaks designó como su Periodista Menos Preferido, he participado en media docena de mesas redondas y he declinado, al menos, otras tantas. No puedo quejarme de la que se celebró en Madrid, donde, después de hablar un buen rato en un auditorio lleno a rebosar, los directores estadounidense, británico, alemán, francés y español que habíamos dado las noticias basadas en Wikileaks conmemoramos la colaboración con una visita al Museo del Prado después del horario normal y una comida de 27 platos cocinada por el maestro de cocineros Ferrán Adriá (si Europa está muriéndose, pienso ir a España a celebrar el funeral).

Inolvidable también, en otro sentido, fue la retrospectiva en Berkeley, donde el propio Assange, que se encontraba, igual que hoy, en Inglaterra a la espera de conocer la decisión sobre su extradición, intervino a través de Skype en una pantalla gigante, como el gran Mago de Oz, para pontificar sobre la incompetencia de los medios de comunicación occidentales que no habían sido capaces de convertir los documentos en una especie de juicio de Nuremberg del imperialismo norteamericano. La mitad del público parecía a punto de tirar su ropa interior a la pantalla.

A eso hay que añadir los tres o cuatro documentales sobre la aventura de Wikileaks, la docena de libros —incluida, extrañamente, la autobiografía no autorizada de Assange— y un par de posibles proyectos en Hollywood, en los que tengo doble interés (1. la ligerísima posibilidad de que pueda cobrar algo de dinero por el pequeño trozo de la historia que me corresponde, y 2. la remotísima probabilidad de que un director acepte la brillante idea de mi esposa de que Tilda Swinton encarne a Assange).

Es asombroso que sigan invitándome a estas cosas, porque soy un poco aguafiestas. Mi respuesta habitual a la solemne pregunta de si WikiLeaks ha transformado nuestro mundo y cómo es: la verdad, no demasiado. Fue una historia fantástica y un increíble proyecto de colaboración, pero no fue el preludio, como les gustaría creer a los documentalistas, de una nueva era digital de transparencia. Es más, si ha tenido una consecuencia general, es más bien la contraria.

Dado que no parece que el tema vaya a desaparecer por ahora --el próximo mes se estrenará otro melodramático documental más sobre nuestra aventura con WikiLeaks en el festival South by Southwest--, he decidido examinar qué repercusiones quedan aún de la que tal vez haya sido la mayor cascada de secretos al descubierto en la historia de Estados Unidos. Assange, que dio a un puñado de periodistas acceso a los datos robados, se ha mudado de la mansión rural de un partidario a una vivienda mucho más modesta mientras combate el intento de extraditarle a Suecia por las acusaciones de delitos sexuales. Al parecer, en Estados Unidos, un gran jurado está todavía debatiendo la posibilidad de procesarle por su papel en las filtraciones. Llevó a cabo muchas horas de entrevistas para una autobiografía, pero luego se retiró del proyecto; sin embargo, su editor --con el espíritu anarquista propio de WikiLeaks-- la publicó pese a sus objeciones. (Por supuesto, no con ánimo de lucro. Ocupa el número 1.288.313 en la lista de libros más vendidos de Amazon.)

El último proyecto de Assange, anunciado el mes pasado, es un programa de entrevistas en televisión en el que hablará con "iconoclastas, visionarios y conocedores del poder". Eso dice la orgullosa cadena que ha comprado de su serie, RT (antes Russia Today), el brazo propagandístico en inglés del Kremlin y guardián del culto a Putin. No es broma.

Aparte de la televisión del Kremlin, Assange ha pasado de ser famoso a ser una celebridad de segunda categoría: no es lo suficientemente estrella para presentar un programa de Saturday Night Live, pero sí tuvo un cameo en el episodio del domingo de Los Simpson. Bart: "¿Cómo le va, señor Assange?" Julian: "Esa es información personal, y no tienes derecho a conocerla". ¡Tadá!

Está previsto que el soldado del ejército acusado de divulgar 750.000 documentos secretos a WikiLeaks, Bradley Manning --al que, al principio, mantuvieron preso en unas condiciones tan inhumanas que el portavoz del Departamento de Estado dimitió como protesta--, sea procesado el jueves por unos cargos que podrían implicar cadena perpetua. Sin disculpar su supuesto delito, es evidente que el verdadero pecado original de todo este drama es que esta alma atormentada tuviera acceso a tantos secretos.

Lo que no podemos saber con certeza es la suerte de los numerosos informadores, disidentes, activistas y testigos inocentes que aparecen mencionados en los cables estadounidenses. Assange publicó nombres de fuentes pese a las enérgicas protestas de los periodistas que habían tenido acceso a los datos (tuvimos cuidado de borrar los nombres en nuestros artículos) y para horror de los grupos de derechos humanos y algunos de sus colegas en WikiLeaks. Me han contado que algunos de los que quedaron expuestos huyeron de sus respectivos países con ayuda de Estados Unidos y a otros los detuvieron, y no se sabe que mataran a ninguno. ¿Pero acaso lo sabríamos? Cuando leo historias como la de Reuters de la semana pasada sobre los tres hombres decapitados en Yemen por dar informaciones a estadounidenses, no puedo evitar volver a preocuparme por los testigos inocentes que aparecían en los cables.

La publicación de tantas confidencias e indiscreciones no dio al traste con la política exterior de Estados Unidos. Pero sí complicó, al menos temporalmente, las vidas de los diplomáticos estadounidenses. Los funcionarios norteamericanos dicen que, ahora, sus homólogos de otros países se resisten más a hablar con franqueza, y que es más difícil contratar y retener a informadores en todo el mundo. Como materia prima para periodistas, el alijo de secretos ha tenido una vida larga y espléndida. Hace 10 meses que The Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel y los demás socios del proyecto publicaron sus últimos extractos, Y todavía aparecen a diario, en algún lugar del mundo, historias basadas en los documentos, bien porque los medios locales se enteran ahora de algún escándalo que no había llamado la atención de los grandes periódicos o porque nuevos sucesos arrojan una luz más interesante sobre ciertos cables.

Los informes del Departamento de Estado sobre las vidas disolutas de los dictadores de Oriente Próximo contribuyeron a alimentar el fuego de las revueltas de la Primavera Árabe. Pero la idea de que se iban a abrir las compuertas e iba a producirse una gran inundación ha resultado completamente equivocada. Inmediatamente después de la brecha, varios medios (incluido The Times) pensaron en crear buzones seguros en internet para posibles filtraciones, imaginando que iban a surgir nuevos Gargantas Profundas de la era digital.

Pero parece evidente que la filtración de WikiLeaks fue un acontecimiento único, y que ahora resulta más difícil que nunca acceder incluso a filtraciones más pequeñas. Steven Aftergood, encargado de supervisar todo lo relacionado con la de seguridad para la Federación de Científicos Americanos, ha dicho que, desde WikiLeaks, el Gobierno ha elevado la "amenaza de las fuentes internas" a la categoría de prioridad y ha restringido el acceso al material clasificado. A instancias de un Congreso indignado, los servicios de inteligencia están trabajando en un programa de auditoría electrónica que, de funcionar, haría mucho más difícil la transferencia de secretos y mucho más fácil perseguir a quien la hiciera. "Se ha prestado mucha atención a WikiLeaks y sus pintorescos propietarios", me dice Aftergood. "Pero lo importante no son los que publican las informaciones, sino las fuentes. Y no hay muchas fuentes tan prolíficas ni tan temerarias como presuntamente lo fue Bradley Manning". No es extraño. El Gobierno de Obama ha sido mucho más agresivo que sus predecesores a la hora de perseguir y castigar a los autores de filtraciones. El caso más reciente, la detención el mes pasado de John Kiriakou, un antiguo agente de la CIA especializado en cazar terroristas, y acusado de decir a los periodistas los nombres de los colegas que participaron en la tortura con agua de sospechosos de Al Qaeda, es sintomático de la actitud al respecto. Es la sextaocasión en que este Gobierno investiga a un funcionario por revelar secretos a los medios de comunicación, más que todos los presidente anteriores juntos.

El mensaje es escalofriante tanto para los que tienen la responsabilidad de guardar secretos legítimos como para los que piensen en hacer denuncias o los funcionarios que pretendan hacer saber a la población si nuestra seguridad nacional está o no protegida. Esta es la paradoja que, hasta ahora, los documentales han pasado por alto: el legado más tangible de la campaña de WikiLeaks para lograr más transparencia es que el Gobierno de Estados Unidos se ha vuelto más hermético que nunca.

INSTITUCIONES | Concurso de Blogs

Escribir sobre la UE tiene premio

ELMUNDO.es | Madrid

Actualizado lunes 20/02/2012 11:26 horas

Las Instituciones Europeas en España y la Embajada de Dinamarca, país que ostenta la presidencia semestral de la UE, han lanzado la tercera edición del concurso de Blogs Espacio Europa.

Con esta iniciativa se pretende fomentar el debate europeo en internet. El jurado, según consta en las bases, premiará la calidad del contenido publicado, su dimensión europea, la originalidad y creatividad a la hora de plantear el tema así como la capacidad de comunicar y de llegar a los lectores. La fecha límite para participar es el 23 de marzo de 2012.

El concurso está abierto a blogueros o aficionados, mayores de 18 años, que entre el 1 de julio de 2011 y el 23 de marzo de 2012 hayan escrito un post o tengan un blog que verse sobre alguna de las categorías del concurso.

Las categorías de los blogs o post son cinco: Actualidad Europea; el Año Europeo del Envejecimiento Activo y la solidaridad intergeneracional; sobre Europa y su futuro; sobre Unión Europea y el crecimiento verde, o que aborde el tema de las presidencias rotatorias de la Unión Europea.

El fallo del jurado se conocerá en el mes de abril, y los ganadores podrán disfrutar de un viaje a Bruselas o a Copenhague en junio.

THE  ECONOMIST      20.2.2012

http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2012/02/germany-and-greece 

Germany and Greece

Wolfgang's woes

Feb 20th 2012, 22:47 by The Economist | Brussels

·            WOLFGANG Schäuble is, in many ways, the strongest – perhaps even the last – Europhile in the German government. But open the pages of Greek newspapers and there he is, the German finance minister depicted in Nazi uniform. It is not just the inflammatory Greek press that dislikes him. The Greek president, Karolos Papoulias, lashed out at him last week: “Who is Mr Schäuble to insult Greece? Who are the Dutch? Who are the Finnish?”

Mr Schäuble is, first and foremost, the German finance minister. As such his job is to protect the interests of the German tax-payer, from both the demands of his fellow ministers and the begging bowl held out by his European colleagues. As creditor-in-chief, one would expect him to be toughest in imposing conditions on Greece before granting a second bail-out.

But the Schäuble problem goes beyond this necessary parsimoniousness. Consistently through the crisis, Mr Schäuble has adopted the hardest positions. First it was a paper circulated by his officials calling for the creation of a budget “commissar” with the power to control the Greek budget. Then it was his open talk a Greek default, and the fact that other European countries were “better prepared” to withstand it. Most recently, he suggested that Greece should postpone its elections so that the technocratic government of Lukas Papademos has more time to implement reforms.

Many think Mr Schäuble has been deliberately pushing the Greeks into a chaotic default (one example is here).  Even so, why do it so overtly? Why invite the crude and simplistic accusation the modern Germany is repeating the Nazis’ jackbooted occupation of Greece? It would be so much simpler to let somebody like the Dutch finance minister, Jan Kees de Jager, do the tough talking (see my previous post) while Germany holds back. Every finance minister of a creditor country must demonstrate that he (or she) is driving a hard bargain. Mr Schäuble knows better than most the many doubts that surround even a second vast bailout of Greece (see this report of the IMF's assessment).  In the end, Mr de Jager’s menaces count for much less than Mr Schäuble’s; if Greece is to be cut loose the decision will be taken in Berlin, not The Hague.

The FT's Quentin Peel recently recently had an interesting piece on the reasons for Germany's rigidity:

Postwar Germany is both profoundly provincial and committed to Europe. The federal system keeps central government in check, locked into a system of coalition government that is consensual and slow-moving. Both politics and the bureaucracy are dominated by lawyers (Mr Schäuble is one) who believe passionately in the need for rules and respect for the law. It makes for a confusing mixture of compromise and inflexibility. Mixed messages emerge from the different centres of power, not least from the finance ministry and the chancellor’s office, until they can agree a common line.

Some argue that Mr Schäuble’s very pro-Europeanism heightens his sense of betrayal by Greece, and the prospect that it could destroy the European Union’s greatest experiment in integration. There may be truth in this. But I cannot help but feel that that also something of the bad-cop routine in Mr Schäuble’s actions. He must act as if a Greek default is possible, even desirable, in order to turn the pressure on Greek politicians. If that means being portrayed as a Nazi, so be it; the alternative is to let Greek politicians think they are immune because the euro zone will never let them collapse.

Still, Mr Schäuble's claim that the euro zone is ready for a Greek default sounds implausible. Last year European politicians were bending over backwards to avoid any sort of default, lest it destabilise the whole of the euro zone. Yes, the European Central Bank’s massive liquidity programme for banks (not sovereigns) has taken the edge off the panic. The reforms being enacted in Italy and Spain have helped too.

But nobody thinks the euro zone has yet overcome the crisis. If it were otherwise, why insist on the fiction that the restructuring of private debt is “voluntary” simply to avoid triggering credit-default swaps? And surely, if Germany were serious about cutting off the Greeks it would be doing more to strengthen anti-contagion measures. On the contrary: Germany has so far resisted a proposal to strengthen the rescue fund by maintaining the temporary European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) even after the creation of permanent European Stability Mechanism due later this year.

The conundrum for the fiscal hawks is that issuing a credible threat to Greece requires issuing a credible guarantee that Italy and Spain would be protected from the consequences. But that is something that Germany will not do, for fear of reducing the reformist pressure on Italy and Spain. So through gritted teeth, Greece must be kept afloat in some manner—not at any cost, of course, but for some time yet, as long as the price is not too exorbitant. “We continue to believe that Greece can be saved. Or at least we continue to say so,” says one Eurocrat.

The difficulty in imposing discipline and reform on Greece will be familiar to any parent of recalcitrant adolescents who do not want to do their homework. Dad may shout, cajole and threat; the kid may come to hate the parent. But if the kid refuses to study, he cannot be starved, beaten or thrown on to the streets. The parent may enjoy the illusion of infinite power, but authority ultimately involves much bluff.

.----------------------------------------

THE  ECONOMIST   20.2.2012

http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2012/02/germanys-next-president

Germany's next president

A good choice

Feb 20th 2012, 16:39 by B.U.

      ALMOST everyone looks like a winner after the hurried decision to name Joachim Gauck, a former East German dissident, as Germany's next president. Mr Gauck, an unsuccessful candidate in 2010, was chosen in a flurry of weekend meetings by five of the six parties in the Bundestag. Christian Wulff, the        man who defeated him, had quit last week after a string of scandals relating to his previous job, premier of the state of Lower Saxony, came to light.

Now Chancellor Angela Merkel, the daughter of a protestant pastor who was raised in communist East Germany, will be joined at the summit of the German state by a man who is himself an East German protestant cleric. Her job is to govern, his will be to exhort and inspire. Approval by the Bundesversammlung, a body called to elect the president, is a formality.

The opposition Social Democratic and Green parties, who pushed Mr Gauck for the presidency in 2010, backed him again. On the surface, at least, his election at the second attempt is a victory for them. It is a bigger coup for the Free Democratic Party (FDP), the ailing junior partner in Mrs Merkel’s coalition government. Its newish chairman, Philipp Rösler, risked a clash with Mrs Merkel—even the breakup of the coalition, according to some reports—by taking a stand in favour of Mr Gauck, the candidate she had opposed less than two years ago.

That is partly because Mr Gauck's unabashed defence of freedom, of the economic as well as the political sort, fits well with the FDP’s liberal principles (it is more surprising that the Social Democrats and Greens support him). Other candidates under consideration, like the former environment minister Klaus Töpfer, would have sent a signal that Mrs Merkel is eager to prepare for a coalition with one of the opposition parties after the next federal election in 2013. Dr Rösler has seen off that danger, a rare victory for the relatively callow liberal leader.

Less obviously, Mrs Merkel has also come out ahead. That is not a universal interpretation. “She had to absorb the bitterest defeat of her time in office,” opined Spiegel Online on Monday. Everyone thought that her Christian Democratic Union (and its Bavarian wing, the Christian Social Union) would reject Mr Gauck to spare the chancellor the embarrassment of admitting she was mistaken to reject him last time around. On this view, she was too weak to stand up to a menacing throng of liberals and leftists.

Maybe so, but Mrs Merkel is probably not too worried. She has a president (the first who is not a member of a party) that almost all the parties in the Bundestag can live with. If presidential elections are partly about signalling future political alliances, the signal is that Mrs Merkel can govern with almost any other party. Not for the first time, what some see as a setback could end up strengthening her.

Most important, the German people also look like winners. Unlike his predecessor, Mr Gauck is a charismatic and inspiring figure. He had a leading role in the protests that toppled the East German regime in 1989. As head of the Stasi archive after unification he pushed to open the files to victims of the East German secret police as well as researchers. He is a forthright patriot (he wants Germans to realise that they “live in a good country that they can love”) but is also willing to say less emollient things when required.

In a new book he calls freedom his highest political value and defends capitalism as a system capable of correcting its mistakes. He has offended anti-capitalists by mocking them as romantics and some civil libertarians by seeming to make light of the danger to privacy from keeping telecoms data available for the police. He criticises Germans for honoring a 'secret constitution', in which the status quo (rather than human dignity) is held to be inviolable. Mr Gauck is the people’s choice: in one poll 54% of the electorate backed him for the presidency. President Gauck may prove a more bracing leader than most Germans imagine

.----------------

LE MONDE   15.2.2012

http://www.lemonde.fr/crise-financiere/article/2012/02/15/le-pib-de-la-zone-euro-s-est-contracte-en-2011_1643514_1581613.html

Accueil > Crise financière

Le PIB de la zone euro s'est contracté en 2011

LEMONDE.FR | 15.02.12 | 13h34   •  Mis à jour le 15.02.12 | 18h52

En a-t-on fini avec une zone euro à deux vitesses ? La récession s'approche à grands pas et attaque désormais l'ensemble des pays de l'union monétaire. En attestent les chiffres du quatrième trimestre 2011 publiés mercredi 15 février : sur la période le Produit intérieur brut (PIB) de l'Union monétaire s'est contracté de 0,3 %.

Un score légèrement moins médiocre que le - 0,4 % attendu par une majorité d'économistes, qui confirme néanmoins du trou d'air traversé par les dix-sept. Sur l'ensemble de l'année la croissance s'élève ainsi à peine à 0,7 %.  Techniquement une récession est officielle après deux trimestres de croissance négative. Une formalité que remplira sans aucun doute la zone euro selon les experts de Deutsche Bank qui attendent un recul du PIB de 0,4 % sur les trois premier mois de 2012.

Moins de trois ans après la violente récession de 2009, l'Union monétaire bascule donc à nouveau du mauvais coté de la barrière . Le "double dip", la croissance en double creux, tant redouté aux Etats-Unis aura ainsi épargné la première économie mondiale. Pas la Vieille Europe.

Faut-il y voir un effet des plans d'austérité mis en place de façon quasi simultanée et parfois brutale chez les dix-sept ? C'est ce que pointent une majorité d'économistes, même parmis les plus libéraux.

De fait, les pays de la périphérie de la zone euro, où les mesures d'austérité ont été souvent radicales souffrent sévèrement. Si la Grèce bat tous les "records" avec un PIB en baisse de 7 % en rythme annuel au quatrième trimestre de 2011, son cas n'est pas, ou plus, tout à fait isolé. Sur la même période, le Portugal (- 1,5 % fin 2011), l'Italie (- 0,7 % ) comme l'Espagne (- 0,3 %) ou la Belgique (-0,2 %) ont aussi vu leurs économies de constracter.

Même les Etats "forts" sont emportés. Ainsi de l'Allemagne, pays aux finances exemplaires, glorifié pour sa compétitivité : au cours des trois dernier mois de l'année 2011 la première économie de l'Union a vu son PIB baisser de 0,2 % entre octobe et décembre de l'année dernière.

La France s'en sort à peine mieux avec une croissance légèrement positive de 0,2 % sur le trimestre. Mais l'exception française ne devrait pas durer. "Les derniers chiffres confirment le scénario d'une dégradation lente de l'activité", observe notamment Nicolas Bouzou, économiste chez Astérès.

La situation actuelle n'est pas une redite de la crise de 2008-2009. La récession reste globalement plus "douce". Mais elle pourait durer plus longtremps. L'avenir économique semble de fait morose pour les dix-sept avec une activité désespéremment molle en 2012, avec un PIB attendu en recul de - 0,5 % selon le Fonds Monétaire international (FMI). Et même si elle redevient positive ensuite l'évolution de l'activité qui devrait rester languissante pendant plusieurs années.

A moins que les mesures d'austérités soient mieux calibrées et que l'accent soit mis davantage sur les efforts de compétitivité des pays de l'Union ?

Claire Gatinois

-----------------------------------

     LE FIGARO  13.2.2012

http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2012/02/13/01016-20120213ARTFIG00572-proces-de-l-amianteune-decision-historique.ph p

 Procès de l'amiante : «Une décision historique»

Mots clés : Amiante, Procès, Turin, Jean-Paul Teissonnière

Par Gabriel Petitpont Mis à jour le 13/02/2012 à 22:05 | publié le 13/02/2012 à 17:47 Réactions (8)

INTERVIEW - Jean-Paul Teissonnière, l'avocat des victimes françaises de l'amiante,estime qu'il y a une inégalité de traitement des victimes entre la France et l'Italie.

En quoi la décision du tribunalde Turin est-elle historique?

Cette décision est sans précédent pour au moins trois raisons. D'abord le niveau des peines est très élevé, comparable à ce qui se fait en matière criminelle. Condamner à des peines de 16 ans de prison marque la volonté de sanctionner un crime social. Et cela me semble à la mesure de la gravité des faits reprochés. Ensuite, le niveau des responsabilités a été situé au niveau le plus élevé: ceux qui étaient à la tête du groupe ont été condamnés. Enfin, le tribunal a reconnu qu'il ne s'agissait pas seulement d'une série de drames individuels, mais bien d'une catastrophe industrielle ayant entraîné de nombreux décès.

Un tel procès est-il envisageable en France?

La situation des victimes de l'amiante en France est comparable à celle des victimes en Italie. Par ailleurs, les traditions juridiques de nos deux pays sont semblables. Pourtant, on observe une inégalité de traitement des victimes entre les deux pays. Pourquoi? Peut-être parce que contrairement à ce qui se passe en France, les parquets italiens sont indépendants du pouvoir politique et donc très efficaces.

Concrètement, ce jugement pourrait-il faire évoluer les choses?

Nous allons réfléchir à la façon d'utiliser ce jugement en France. Il pourrait d'abord être l'occasion d'interpeller les pouvoirs publics sur l'indépendance de la justice, car il est urgent de rompre l'omerta qui règne actuellement sur le débat judiciaire. Peut-être, cette décision historique pourrait-elle aussi accélérer la tenue d'un procès similaire dans notre pays. Quoi qu'il en soit, cette décision est un signe encourageant pour l'avenir.

 -----------------------------------

       THE WALL STREE JOURNAL  8.2.201

      http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/02/08/monti-germany-invented-the-market-economy-in-      postwar-europe  /

     February 8, 2012, 12:04 PM

Monti: Germany ‘Invented the Market Economy’ in Postwar Europe

By Alessandra Galloni

Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti has offered up a little refresher (and perhaps slightly revisionist) course in economic history. In a wide-ranging interview with The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Monti — a longtime economics professor — hailed the Germans for being the founders of Europe’s post-World War II market economy.

The Germans “are, after all, the ones, in postwar Europe, who invented the market economy. This is not a U.K. construction,” Mr. Monti said.

We asked whether he meant the “social” market economy that was the main model used in West Germany after World War II. “Even the ‘market economy,’” Mr. Monti corrected us.

So Bismarck and the Bundesbank may deserve more time in the capitalist curriculum than Adam Smith and Bagehot.

Mr. Monti pointed to a 1975 U.K. referendum, in which voters were asked to decide whether they wanted to stay in the then so-called European Economic Community, or Common Market. “The ‘yes’ party won the case basically on the point that the domestic U.K. economy was such a mess that it wouldn’t become an orderly market economy unless the U.K. tied its hands through continued adherence to the single market.”

The Common Market “was dominated by notions of the market economy — market, competition, no state aids — introduced by Germany into the European context,” said Mr. Monti, who is a former European antitrust chief. He added that in the European Union’s founding years, only Germany had a national competition watchdog — the Bundeskartellamt, created in 1958.

Do the Italian leader’s words signal the degree to which Europe is slowly becoming more Germanified? Perhaps. Though Mr. Monti’s praise was a way to nudge Berlin into practicing what it preaches, notably: do a better job opening up Germany’s domestic market as a way to make Europe’s economy more dynamic as a whole.

“We should urge the Germans to go the full extent into their virtuous notions of the social market economy,” Mr. Monti said.

  -----------------------------------

THE WASHINGTON POST  2.2.2012

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mario-draghi-deserves-two-cheers-for-his-handling-of-european-debt-crisis/2012/01/31/gIQAHd6ziQ_story.html

 Two cheers for ‘Super Mario’ Draghi

By David Ignatius, Published: February 2

Two years into the European debt crisis, there was something faintly comical about the headline in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal: “Leaders of Euro Zone Agree on Closer Union.” That phrase must be on a program key on computers in Brussels.

The euro zone is still an impossibility theorem, in terms of what it promises: a common currency for countries that, whatever they claim at summit meetings about joint fiscal policy, remain resolutely separate and sovereign. It’s a matter of deeply rooted culture: Germans aren’t ever going to spend like Greeks, and Greeks aren’t going to save like Germans — no matter what anyone says in a communique.

The latest sign of the disunity that underlies promises of closer union came during this week’s negotiations over a new bailout package for Greece. According to David Smick, a prominent financial consultant, “There seems to be a fundamental disagreement over the threat of a Greek default,” with some Germans officials arguing that it can be managed and other Europeans warning that it risks a Lehman-like crisis.

Still, there’s a growing sense among financial analysts that Europe may have bought itself some time in its financial crisis. That’s not because of political pronouncements about unity but thanks to some backroom financial maneuvers by the new head of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, whom the analysts have lionized as “Super Mario.”

Since Draghi took the ECB job in November, he has been accomplishing by stealth what he is forbidden to do by fiat — namely, backstop European markets by acting as a lender of last resort. He can’t directly buy up the toxic debt of European debtor nations, but he’s accomplishing a similar purpose by lending to banks at very low interest rates. He’s pumping in liquidity through the back door, even as the front door remains bolted tight.

Draghi made his move in December, when he announced the ECB was lending 489 billion euros to banks in three-year “repo,” or repurchase, agreements at very low interest rates. Effectively, he was giving the banks free money. At the time, European credit markets were nearly frozen. According to statistics released last week, euro-area loans to the private sector declined in December by the sharpest percentage on record.

“We know for sure we have avoided a major credit crunch,” Draghi said last week during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. European financial markets seem to agree: The Stoxx 600 European index entered bull-market territory last week, up 20 percent from its low in September.

So, two cheers for Super Mario: His creative banking recalls innovative actions taken by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke to keep U.S. credit markets operating during the dark days of 2008. Draghi’s backdoor measures finessed Germany’s angst about money-creating central banks (and their inflationary dangers); this German opposition prevents the ECB from lending directly to member countries.

The reason to withhold a third cheer for Draghi is that he can’t solve the core European problem, any more than did Monday’s European summit with its unconvincing announcement of ever-closer union. The reality is that the 17 governments that use the euro will not give up their sovereignty, no matter how loudly the Germans demand pledges of fiscal discipline. Until there really is a United States of Europe (which is probably never), any such fiscal promises will be unenforceable.

Think of the euro zone as Fannie Mae: Both have a noble purpose (European unity in the former case, homeownership in the latter); and both carried an assumption that this noble mission was backed by an implicit government guarantee. But when the crunch came, there was no guarantee, and no safety net. Despite Draghi’s monetary sleight of hand, there still isn’t one for the euro zone.

A snapshot of how the financial elite views Europe came at an unusual private dinner I attended last Friday in Davos, which included some prominent names in global finance. One guest polled the group about its level of confidence in Europe; nearly all were more optimistic than they had been in November, thanks to Draghi, but a majority said they expected that another big European shock was ahead.

When the group was polled about the likelihood of a breakup of the euro zone over the next five years (i.e., whether a Spain or an Italy would drop out), the consensus forecast was that the risk of such a rupture was roughly one in four. Those are scary odds, if you’re betting on European stability.

Super Mario with his elegant monetary police can cushion the damage in the short run, and more power to him. But the common currency still seems founded on an ultimately unrealizable concept of fiscal unity. Rather than trying to pretend this isn’t so, the Europeans should be thinking about how to build a structure that fits the (happy) reality that Germany and Greece will remain two very different countries, with different economic DNA.

davidignatius@washpost.com

 -----------------------------------

THE NEW YORK TIMES  30.1.2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/world/europe/eu-leaders-fall-short-of-far-reaching-debt-solution.html?_r=1&ref=europe

European Leaders Agree to New Budget Discipline Measures

By STEPHEN CASTLE and JAMES KANTER

Published: January 30, 2012

 The meeting of 27 European Union heads of state and government here in Brussels was aimed at completing the text of a so-called fiscal compact for the 17 nations relying on or intending to join the euro zone — with only Britain and the Czech Republic opting not to adopt the measures.

After a meeting lasting seven hours, the leaders also issued a declaration calling for a new push to restart growth and combat joblessness across the Continent.

But a number of politicians and analysts said the pledge by the European leaders to create new jobs was mostly empty, and others complained that the proposed rules to keep deficits under control contained little to actually help nations with high borrowing costs.

The summit declaration also skirted the continuing problems in Greece, where a second bailout is being held up by the inability of the government in Athens to complete a deal with private holders of Greek bonds over the losses they should accept.

Until Athens and its private-sector creditors can agree on a $132 billion writedown on Greek government debt, the International Monetary Fund and the European Union are not prepared to sign off on a further bailout. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said the Greek situation would not be addressed until after representatives of Greece’s so-called troika of creditors — the European Union, the I.M.F. and the European Central Bank — report back on their investigation into what will be needed for Greece to manage its finances on its own.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, told a news conference at the end of the summit that there would be a “definitive agreement” on the private sector’s involvement in reducing Greek debt in coming days. After Monday night’s summit meeting, informal talks continued between the Greek prime minister, Lucas Papademos, and European officials.

Despite the various other problems to deal with, an agreement on the fiscal compact could clear the way for Germany to accept stronger efforts by the European Central Bank to support ailing countries and a more comprehensive bailout fund aimed at protecting Italy and Spain against the risk of default.

“It is an important step forward to a stability union,” Mrs. Merkel told reporters. “For those looking at the union and the euro from the outside, it is a very important to show this commitment.” Britain, which clashed openly with France and Germany last month over the pact, did not give any ground Monday and was joined by the Czech Republic, which also elected to stay outside.

“We are not signing this treaty,” David Cameron, the British prime minister, said. “We are not ratifying it. And it places no obligations” on the United Kingdom, he said.

He added: “Our national interest is that these countries get on and sort out the mess that is the euro.”

Mr. Sarkozy sounded philosophical about the Britons’ intransigence. “There are different degrees of integration and everyone is free to choose where they stand,” he said.

While European leaders agreed to bring a permanent bailout fund into existence earlier than previously foreseen, they postponed any final decisions on its ultimate size and how it will be financed. The International Monetary Fund has been pressing Europe to commit enough money to provide a credible backstop that would insure that Italy and Spain could pay their bills and continue to finance their debts.

Germany backed away from a suggestion that it wanted the government in Athens to cede temporarily control over tax and spending decisions to a new, all-powerful, budget commissioner before it can secure further bailouts. Italy won its battle to restrict the scope of the fiscal compact, which calls for making it easier to impose sanctions against countries that break European Union budget rules. The text said the compact would make it harder to block sanctions against countries that exceed annual deficit targets but that the same tough system would not apply to nations with excessive overall debt, like Italy.

The compact will come into force in those nations that agree to its terms once 12 euro zone nations have ratified it. That would prevent the project being held up if one or two nations hold referendums on the deal.

Still, impatience with the German focus on belt-tightening loomed large over the summit meeting.

“You don’t have to be an economics professor to know that if you have zero growth you are not going to sort things out,” said Martin Schulz, the president of the European Parliament. Critics of austerity point to Greece, which is being strangled by a vicious cycle of deficit cutting, declining tax revenues and more budget cutting, while making little if any progress on its overall budget deficit.

Guy Verhofstadt, leader of the centrist liberal and democrat group, and a former prime minister of Belgium, took a similar stand.

“The new agreement consolidates fiscal discipline but omits completely to address the other side of the coin — that of solidarity and investment that will create jobs and growth,” Mr. Verhofstadt said. “E.U. leaders should act instead of producing more paper.”

A version of this article appeared in print on January 31, 2012, on page A4 of the New York edition with the headline: European Leaders Agree to New Measures to Enforce Budget Discipline.

 --------------------------------------------

 THE WASHINGTON POST 30.1.2012

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/oscar-luigi-scalfaro-past-president-of-italy-dies-at-93/2012/01/29/gIQAqbWzaQ_story.html

 Oscar Luigi Scalfaro, past president of Italy, dies at 93

By Colleen Barry, Published: January 30

Oscar Luigi Scalfaro, a past president of Italy who held the post during the sweeping corruption scandal of the early 1990s that reshaped the country’s post-war political landscape, died Jan. 29 in Rome. He was 93.

The cause of death was not immediate disclosed.

Italian President Giorgio Napolitano called Mr. Scalfaro a “protagonist in the democratic political life” and an example of “moral integrity.”

“As president of the republic, he firmly and steadfastly confronted one of the most difficult periods of our history,” Napolitano said in a statement.

Pope Benedict XVI remembered Mr. Scalfaro as a “distinguished” Catholic statesman who “helped to promote the common good and the perennial ethical and religious values.”

Mr. Scalfaro was a key figure in postwar Italian politics, helping to write the constitution and to found the former Christian Democrats. He held numerous prominent government posts before becoming Italy’s ninth post-war president, a position that is largely ceremonial but carries the significant role of moral compass for the country.

As president from 1992 to 1999, Mr. Scalfaro was often called upon to resolve Italy’s recurrent political crises, by either choosing a new premier or calling early elections. He once called Italy’s volatile political situation “pathological.”

The “Clean Hands” investigations launched in the early 1990s uncovered a broad system of bribes that wiped out much of Italy’s political class, including key members of the conservative Christian Democrats and the center-left Social Democrats. The scandals deeply eroded Italians’ trust in politicians and led to the demise of the two parties that had formed the pillars of post-war Italian politics.

Premier Mario Monti said Mr. Scalfaro “consistently defended the values” enshrined in the constitution.

A devout Roman Catholic with a law degree from the Catholic University of Milan, Mr. Scalfaro spent the World War II years working to help imprisoned anti-Fascists and their families.

After the war, in 1946, he won a seat in the assembly that wrote the constitution for the Italian Republic, declared in late 1947 after a popular referendum abolished the monarchy.

A native of the northern city of Novara, Mr. Scalfaro was elected to the Chamber of Deputies in the Italian republic’s first general election in 1948 and remained a deputy until he was elected president in 1992.

Mr. Scalfaro held junior posts at various ministries through the 1950s and early 1960s. In 1966, he gained his first Cabinet position when Premier Aldo Moro appointed him transportation minister.

In subsequent governments, Mr. Scalfaro served two more stints as transport minister and was education minister and interior minister. He was vice president of the Chamber of Deputies from 1976 to 1983.

He became a senator for life after completing his term as president.

Survivors include his daughter, Marianna.

—Associated Press

 --------------------------------------------

THE ECONOMIST 28.1.2012

 http://www.economist.com/node/21543481 

Fiat and the Agnelli family

Near-death experience

The rise and fall and rise of Italy’s premier car manufacturer

Jan 28th 2012 | from the print edition

Mondo Agnelli: Fiat, Chrysler, and the Power of a Dynasty. By Jennifer Clark. Wiley; 360 pages; $29.95 and £19.99. Buy from Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk

LESS than a decade ago, Fiat, the largest private manufacturing company in Italy, seemed bound for the scrapheap. The carmaker had celebrated its first 100 years in 1999 and had weathered other financial storms in the recent past. However, when it had to negotiate a huge convertible loan with its bankers in 2002 the prospect that it would progress much further into its second century looked slim. Yet Fiat survived and, in sorting itself out, was also able to save another stricken carmaker.

Fiat’s own turnaround and its acquisition of a troubled Detroit motor manufacturer, Chrysler, nearly three years ago offer an encouraging story of businesses with their backs to the wall. For many Italians, though, the Fiat saga is as much about the Agnelli family that controls it (with a 30.4% stake). The ingredients of the story include wealth, glitz, glamour, suicide, substance abuse and a multi-million-euro inheritance row. Gianni Agnelli (pictured above), a grandson of the founder and Fiat’s chairman from 1966 until 1996, revelled in a playboy’s life in the 1950s and 1960s and remained a style icon for Italians until his death in January 2003.

Jennifer Clark, a Milan-based business journalist, has written the first account in English about Fiat and the Agnellis since Alan Friedman, then Milan correspondent for the Financial Times, published “Agnelli, Fiat and the Network of Italian Power” nearly a quarter of a century ago. Mr Friedman examined Fiat’s place in Italy’s web of financial, industrial and political relationships, covering the company’s arms business and its prominent Libyan shareholders. Fiat is still in the public eye today, but Ms Clark avoids sensitive political issues. And she takes care not to offend the family although her book does venture into delicate matters, in particular the suicide of Agnelli’s only son, Edoardo, and the ongoing row over Agnelli’s will. His only daughter, Margherita, has instructed lawyers to fight both her mother, Marella Agnelli, and her eldest son, John Elkann, Fiat’s chairman since 2010. (Mr Elkann is a director of The Economist’s parent company).

Ms Clark’s assessment of Agnelli as “charming, intelligent, curious” and yet unable “to make the tough managerial decisions that the company needed” has the ring of truth. Poor decision-making at the top was one of the reasons why Fiat floundered in the early years of this century, although deaths in the family played a part. (Giovanni Alberto, elder son of Gianni Agnelli’s younger brother and heir, Umberto, died of cancer in 1997 at the age of 33, and Umberto himself died in 2004, just 16 months after becoming chairman.) That Fiat had five CEOs in two years speaks of grim times. With the arrival of the fifth, Sergio Marchionne, in June 2004, the management churn ended, Fiat got to grips with its problems, took control of Chrysler and made progress in putting it on track. Mr Marchionne now joins Vittorio Valletta who ran Fiat for 20 years after the second world war and Cesare Romiti who did so in the 1980s and 1990s as managers to whom the family owes much.

The frantic period of crisis and cure between 2000 and the present, when trusted octogenarian advisers, Gianluigi Gabetti and Franzo Grande Stevens, also helped the family keep control of the firm, is Ms Clark’s focus. While the emphasis is on the Agnellis and their firm, she was kept busy on both sides of the Atlantic, speaking not only with Fiat folk in Italy but also with several of the key characters at Chrysler. Ms Clark says her book was rushed into print to keep pace with developments in Detroit. Hurried editing shows in erratic chronology, direct speech whose sources are unclear and easily avoidable errors. Even so, Ms Clark writes a cracking business yarn and warns that for Fiat-Chrysler “much still remains to be done”.

from the print edition | Books and arts

.--------------------------------------------------

THE ECONOMIST 28.1.2012

 http://www.economist.com/node/21543564

Italy’s reforms

The Iron Monti

The Italian prime minister faces big protests against liberalisation

Jan 28th 2012 | ROME | from the print edition

MARIO MONTI, Italy’s prime minister, is set fair to become his country’s Margaret Thatcher. But who will play the role of the miners, whose strike represented the most serious challenge to the Iron Lady’s free-market reforms?

Angry victims of Mr Monti’s legislation have queued up for the honour ever since his government approved a wide-ranging package of liberalisation measures on January 20th. Taxi drivers held a one-day national strike to protest at a scheme to increase the number of licences. Chemists, who have a similar objection to a rise in the number of pharmacies, are to down pillboxes on February 1st. Lawyers, who oppose the abolition of minimum and maximum charges, plan a two-day strike later. There is a threat of industrial action by railway workers, upset by proposals to increase competition on commuter lines.

So far the most effective and damaging action has been taken by self-employed lorry drivers, whose real gripe is over the soaring cost of diesel. Fuel prices were pushed higher by an increase in excise duty in the Monti government’s emergency budget in December. Truckers are also protesting against an omission from the liberalisation package, which contained no plans to cut motorway tolls. If they staged a five-day stoppage, it could cost the country as much as €1 billion ($1.4 billion), according to the business daily, Il Sole-24 Ore. Blockades have stopped production at car plants and caused widespread food shortages. On January 24th a striking lorry driver was run over and killed by a German trucker, who was detained by police. There have been reports of beatings of lorry drivers who refused to back the strike. In Sicily there are claims that leaders of the protests have links to the Mafia.

Heady stuff for a government of professors and other distinguished technocrats. Can they really expect to win a trial of strength with Italy’s legendarily stubborn (and sometimes violent) vested interests? The lack of professional party politicians in Mr Monti’s government may turn out to be its strongest suit. That means it is not beholden to powerful lobbies (though some Italians see the prime minister, who was once an adviser to Goldman Sachs, as a representative of international big business, a charge he vigorously denies).

Another ace up the government’s sleeve is that, for the moment at least, its reforms are popular. Mr Monti claims that his liberalising measures will sweep away many “hidden taxes” that Italians pay on services because there is little or no competition among suppliers. That seems to have struck a chord. A poll for Corriere della Sera, a daily, found 58% support for his package. And, despite the pain it has inflicted, Mr Monti’s government has an approval rating of 52%. Fully 68% want it to stay in office until the next general election, due in early 2013.

Explore our interactive guide to Europe's troubled economies

Whether it does will depend on the political parties, because the government needs their backing in parliament for its survival. And their continued support will in turn depend, in part at least, on the public’s tolerance of Mr Monti’s reforms. Like Lady Thatcher’s, however, these will take time to have an effect.

One important change in the latest package is the hiving-off of Italy’s gas-distribution network from its majority owner, ENI, to create a level playing-field for competition. But this will take two-and-a-half years to complete, and the effect on consumer prices will not be felt until even later. An oft-quoted study by Confindustria and the Bank of Italy concludes that liberalisation of Italy’s services could add 11% to GDP. Less often noted is the study’s estimate that the benefits would take over 30 years to come through.

Already some politicians are drumming their fingers. On January 20th the prime minister’s predecessor, Silvio Berlusconi, declared that the cure devised by Mr Monti’s technocrats had not worked and that he and his ministers “expected to be recalled to occupy the government positions [they] had before”.

.-----------------------------------------------------

FRANKFURTER  ALLGEMEINE  ZEITUNG  22.1.2012

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/reformen-in-italien-monti-braucht-mehr-mut-11619312.html

 Reformen in Italien Monti braucht mehr Mut

22.01.2012 ·  Das jüngste italienische Reformpaket ist ziemlich zahm ausgefallen. Ministerpräsident Monti muss mehr riskieren. Ohne manche dramatische Machtprobe ist die Rettung Italiens nicht zu haben.

Von Tobias Piller

ario Monti, seit zwei Monaten Ministerpräsident Italiens, ist um seine Aufgabe nicht zu beneiden. Innerhalb weniger Wochen soll er die Aufgaben lösen, die sich in Jahrzehnten von Klientelpolitik und wirtschaftspolitischem Stillstand angehäuft haben. Sonst droht Italien wegen seiner Staatsschuld von 1900 Milliarden Euro oder 120 Prozent des Bruttoinlandsprodukts in einen Strudel von schlechten Nachrichten, Spekulation und Misstrauen der Anleger unterzugehen - und mit Italien womöglich auch der Euro.

Ohne Rücksicht auf Tabus

Gleich nach Amtsantritt hat sich Monti entschlossen dem Haushaltsdefizit und der längst überfälligen Rentenreform gewidmet. Mit kräftigen Korrekturen brachte er die Haushaltsplanung in Ordnung. Nun gibt es keinen Zweifel mehr daran, dass Italiens Haushaltsdefizit 2013 bei null sein wird. Zugleich wurden ohne Rücksicht auf Tabus alte Privilegien bei den Renten abgeschafft.

Weitere Artikel

Monti verspricht 11 Prozent mehr Wachstum 

Schuldenkrise: Italien verlangt den Billionen-Rettungsfonds 

Ein Doppel-Whopper für den Euro: ESM und EFSF kombinieren 

Als zweiten Schritt hat der Wirtschaftsprofessor und Ministerpräsident Monti Reformpakete für mehr Wirtschaftswachstum versprochen. Denn trotz der Stabilisierung des Haushalts können die Staatsschulden nur zurückbezahlt werden, wenn sich Italiens Wirtschaft besser entwickelt. Bei Stagnation oder einem realen Wachstum von 0,5 oder 0,8 Prozent im Jahr wäre es nicht sicher, ob im Jahr 2022 zehnjährige Staatstitel abgelöst werden können. Daher verlangen die Anleger einen Risikozuschlag („Spread“) gegenüber deutschen Titeln, zuletzt immer noch von 4,5 Prozentpunkten.

Lahmes Reformpaket

Doch das jüngste Reformpaket vom Freitag, für Liberalisierungen und mehr Markt, ist ziemlich zahm ausgefallen. Zwar protestieren Taxifahrer, Apotheker oder Rechtsanwälte. Doch in zahlreichen Detailfragen hat die Regierung nachgegeben. Zudem wurden die vielen lokalen Versorgungsunternehmen von den Reformen ausgenommen. Diese sind oft Hochburgen der örtlichen Klientelwirtschaft. Die Bürger müssen über die Preise für Wasser, Strom oder Abfallbeseitigung ineffiziente kommunale Unternehmen finanzieren, damit weiterhin mancher Bürgermeister einen Posten für den Sohn seines Fahrers oder andere Freunde schaffen kann.

Ministerpräsident Monti hat verbreiten lassen, dass sein Reformpaket in den kommenden Jahren zusätzliches Wachstum von 11 Prozentpunkten erreichen wird. Das klingt nach Zweckoptimismus. Die Kernfrage des Wachstums wurde bisher ausgespart: Italien braucht eine Reform des Arbeitsmarktes, der bisher wenigen Festangestellten in Großbetrieben unkündbare Arbeitsplätze bietet, den jungen Italienern aber nur prekäre Jobs. Vor allem bleiben wegen des aus den Siebziger Jahren stammenden Arbeitsrechts Millionen von Kleinunternehmen unter der juristisch kritischen Schwelle von 15 Mitarbeitern und sind damit im globalen Markt nicht mehr so wettbewerbsfähig wie früher. Würde diese Schwelle heraufgesetzt, auf wenigstens 50 oder besser 100 Mitarbeiter, wäre neue Dynamik bei den Kleinunternehmen zu erwarten und damit ein Wachstumssprung. Doch die Regierung will nun mit den reformunwilligen Gewerkschaften nach Kompromissen suchen; das ist ein schlechtes Vorzeichen.

Hilfeschrei gen Europa

Wäre es allerdings einfach, Reformen gegen die vielen Teilinteressen durchzusetzen, hätten womöglich manche früheren Regierungen etwas mehr geschafft als enttäuschendes Kleinklein. Selbst Monti scheint nun Zweifel zu bekommen. Vorsorglich hat er schon nach Hilfe aus Europa gerufen. Der Rettungsfonds solle größer, die Zinsen sollten niedriger sein. Solche Forderungen fallen in Italien auf fruchtbaren Boden, denn die vielen Politiker, die in den vergangenen Jahren versagt haben, gaukeln ihren Landsleuten vor, Europa und vor allem Deutschland könnten alle Probleme lösen: mit Schuldengarantie, Eurobonds und unbegrenztem Gelddruck durch die Europäische Zentralbank. Die unbequeme Wahrheit ist allerdings, dass mit diesen Methoden wenig zu gewinnen ist. Vielleicht lässt sich Zeit gewinnen, doch das vertragt nur die Probleme. Obwohl Italiens Politiker davon nichts wissen wollen: Gelddruck oder Schuldengarantien der Europäischen Zentralbank brächten nicht nur große Inflationsschübe, sondern wären auch eine Verletzung der Abmachungen für die Währungsunion, ein Zeichen für Unglaubwürdigkeit jeglicher weiterer Verträge.

Für Monti gibt es damit keinen anderen Weg, als Italien produktiver und wettbewerbsfähiger zu machen. Das bringt mehr Wohlstand und auch das Ende der Zweifel am italienischen Schuldenstand. Der Spread könnte sinken und damit die Zinsen. Die Banken wären stabiler finanziert, die Unternehmen erhielten billigere Kredite. Monti könnte seine Steuereinnahmen statt für Zinskosten besser für niedrigere Sozialabgaben auf Arbeitsplätze verwenden. Doch dieses Ziel kann nur mit noch mehr Mut zu Reformen erreicht werden. Monti muss riskieren, sich unbeliebt zu machen. Ohne manche dramatische Machtprobe ist die Rettung Italiens nicht zu haben.

  --------------------------------------------

THE ECONOMIST  21.1.2012

http://www.economist.com/node/21543167

Italy’s prime minister

A good professor in Rome

Mario Monti has restored Italy’s good name in Europe. Now he wants help

Jan 21st 2012 | ROME | from the print edition

BEFORE the European Union summit on January 30th, Italy’s new prime minister, Mario Monti, will have visited the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, and the British prime minister, David Cameron, whom he saw on January 18th. Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council, has been to see him in Rome. And the French, German and Italian leaders plan a pre-meeting just before the summit.

It is a far cry from most of the second half of last year, when Europe’s leaders did as much as they could to avoid being caught in a photograph with Mr Monti’s scandal-tainted predecessor, Silvio Berlusconi. Italy, it seems fair to say, is back at the top table. And that could have far-reaching effects on the euro crisis. For, as he is making increasingly plain, Mr Monti’s ideas on how to resolve it are significantly at odds with those of the Germans who have until now been doing most of the ordering—and choosing pretty thin gruel.

 “Adherence to fiscal discipline is a necessary condition for growth,” he told an audience at the London Stock Exchange on January 18th. “It is not however a sufficient condition.” His message to Mrs Merkel and Mr Sarkozy is that the EU must move from reliance only on austerity towards some growth-stimulating measures. This was a view repeated by Standard & Poor’s, the rating agency that downgraded nine euro-zone countries, including Italy, on January 13th. Unlike his colleague from France, also downgraded, and the European Commission, Mr Monti did not criticise S&P: indeed, he shared much of its analysis.

Mr Monti, who served as the EU’s commissioner for the single market and then competition between 1995 and 2004, is a rare creature: an Italian economic liberal. He is not a proponent of harrying Berlin to reflate to boost domestic consumption. But he would like to see the Germans do more to liberalise their own services, to bolster the EU’s single market (indeed, he wrote a report for the commission in May 2010 advocating further liberalisation).

In London this week Mr Monti pledged to back a British effort to complete the single market, and thus to improve competitiveness throughout the EU. Although he believes it is unrealistic to expect Mr Cameron to go back on his refusal in December to sign up to the proposed fiscal compact between EU members, he is keen to involve the British as much as possible.

Speaking before his visit to London, in his office in Palazzo Chigi in Rome, Mr Monti says: “The more the UK feels distanced from European construction, the less others are able to benefit from the full influence of the many good things that the UK can help us all to achieve, and therefore there are many areas where I think it would be beneficial to have the UK fully at the table.”

Mr Monti acknowledges in his characteristically unhurried, measured way that “it is rather unusual for Italy to be at the forefront of pro-market initiatives.” But he plans to practise at home what he has been preaching abroad. “I am convinced that it is also in Italy’s national interest,” he says. On January 19th his cabinet was due to approve an extensive package of measures designed to free up markets and increase competition in a country where cosy cartels have long been the norm. His government of technocrats, which took office in November 2011, is also trying to force labour-market reform on the trade unions and fiscal compliance on Italy’s legendarily tax-shy self-employed. This amounts to a hugely ambitious programme.

Resistance to change in Italy can be formidable, and violent. Both the advisers most closely associated with labour-market reforms in the past 13 years have been shot dead. Since Mr Monti’s government stepped up a drive for increased tax compliance, there have been repeated attacks on branches of the tax-collection agency, some involving rudimentary bombs. Taxi drivers, who expect to lose from the government’s liberalisation, caused mayhem in Rome this week, blocking traffic and detonating home-made parcel bombs.

But the prime minister argues that he has at least two advantages: his experience in Brussels grappling with multinationals and national governments, and the fact that his government is not beholden to any one political faction or interest group. Although unelected, and responsible for an emergency budget in December that inflicted considerable pain on Italians, Mr Monti’s administration remains surprisingly popular. The prime minister believes that “there was in Italy a hidden demand for a boring government which would try to tell the truth in non-political jargon.”

Some would add that he has also benefited from the sheer terror spread among Italians over the way that the euro-zone crisis suddenly engulfed their country last year. Benchmark sovereign-bond yields that have repeatedly bobbed around 7%, and a spread between Italian and German debt that has frequently topped 500 basis points, help to explain why they have been so ready to entrust their fate to a government of perceived experts. So far.

But there is a danger, the prime minister fears, of the “spread effect” turning against his government. Many Italians had hoped that ditching Mr Berlusconi would save them from the wrath of the markets and see bond yields coming down. As Mr Monti noted when speaking on January 18th to the London School of Economics (LSE) they did, gratifyingly, fall at first. But yields then climbed back up towards the sort of levels they had reached under Mr Berlusconi. Sure enough, some Italians have reacted to this by asking if a change of government was really necessary.

“Austerity is not enough, even for budgetary discipline, if economic activity does not pick up a decent rate of growth,” Mr Monti warns. “A lowering in interest rates does not depend only on Italy’s efforts but also, and essentially, on Europe’s ability to confront the crisis in a more decisive way.” At the LSE, he even donned a university cap, with the quip that he hoped it could represent a cap on interest rates.

He is studiously vague on how such a cap might be imposed, not least because he and his fellow leaders have agreed not to issue appeals to the independent European Central Bank. And, though he has also said he favours the idea of Eurobonds, he appears to think they are unlikely to come in time to help with the current crisis. But he has left fellow euro-zone leaders in no doubt that, unless some action is taken soon to reward Italians for their efforts by bringing down interest rates, his government might be replaced by something a lot less palatable to them.

When Mr Monti referred earlier this month to the threat of growing Euroscepticism in Italy, it was widely seen as an allusion to the populist Northern League, Mr Berlusconi’s junior coalition partner during his time in office. But he says the danger is much broader than that. “What I see now, week after week, in parliament is a widening of the spread of this attitude...The degree of impatience-cum-hostility to the EU, to the ECB and to Germany is mounting.” It is a warning that his fellow leaders should take to heart.

from the print edition | Europe

 --------------------------------------------

.L’OSSERVATORE ROMANO 19.1.2012

http://www.osservatoreromano.va/  

                                                       Intervista al presidente del Consiglio dei ministri italiano Mario Monti

                                              Bisogna guardare avanti con coraggio

«Il magistero del Papa e la sua personale, forte testimonianza, il contributo importante della Santa Sede e della Conferenza episcopale italiana sono elementi propulsivi e critici di fondamentale rilievo. Di fronte al bene comune non si può fuggire». A sottolineare con queste parole il fondamentale apporto dei cattolici alla vita sociale italiana è stato il presidente del Consiglio dei ministri, Mario Monti, nell’intervista per «L’Osservatore Romano» e la Radio Vaticana, il cui testo viene pubblicato integralmente anche sui siti del nostro giornale e dell’emittente.La crisi etica, ancora prima che economica, che attanaglia l’Europa; la frattura tra cittadini e politica; il futuro della moneta unica e del progetto di integrazione europea; le politiche fiscali introdotte per raggiungere il pareggio di bilancio; le liberalizzazioni: sono questi alcuni dei temi toccati da presidente del Consiglio italiano.

Presidente Monti, in un mondo di profondi cambiamenti economici e politici, sia a livello nazionale che internazionale, quali sono, secondo Lei, gli aspetti più qualificanti dei rapporti tra Stato e Chiesa? Lei, in particolare, vede dei cambiamenti in prospettiva?

In uno “spazio largo”, nel mondo globalizzato, dove l’idea stessa di confine non è più rigida, il rapporto tra gli Stati e la Chiesa può essere un ponte, un varco che abbatte i muri degli egoismi nazionali e rinsalda il senso di un’appartenenza che significa rispetto, responsabilità, solidarietà. La tradizione diventa “identità arricchita”, risorsa, riscoperta della comunità come possibilità di riscatto per ogni persona, storia e prospettiva di vita.

Presidente, condivide il fatto che le difficoltà dell’Occidente siano causate da una crisi etica e di valori, prima ancora che economica? Insomma, incide su questo, a suo avviso, anche la secolarizzazione e l’indebolimento delle “radici cristiane” dell’Europa?

Nessuno è in grado oggi di stabilire quando finirà l’attuale crisi economica e finanziaria, poi diventata sempre di più crisi sociale; ma ciascuno di noi ha il dovere di scegliere come chiudere il “tempo della povertà”, interrogandosi seriamente su quale sia la ricchezza vera. La crisi è conosciuta, a volte perfino drammatica, per le conseguenze materiali. È meno conosciuta, ma non meno grave, per le “povertà nascoste” che pure ha causato: emarginazione, perdita di speranza, denatalità, disgregazione delle comunità, delle famiglie, delle realtà associative. Non sempre noi vediamo drammi e deserti interiori che affliggono anche i giovani. In passato, la fine delle crisi economiche più gravi è venuta a coincidere con fatti storici drammatici, ed oggi si è parlato — in alcuni giornali — di «guerra finanziaria», di «attacco all’Europa», di «conflitti all’interno stesso dell’Europa». Oggi più che mai, la storia e la sua memoria chiedono l’impegno ed il coraggio di tutti ad ogni livello. Nessuna parola cade nel vuoto. Nessuna parola può non essere ascoltata. Anche un apparente, iniziale insuccesso può aprire strade nuove di dialogo e di crescita civile, morale, sociale. La giustizia e la pace sono la risposta più efficace alla perdita di senso che la crisi economica ha, in modo latente, provocato nella quotidianità delle persone. La crisi, per essere superata in tutti i suoi gravi profili, richiede quindi di guardare in avanti con coraggio, con speranza, ma anche di riscoprire le proprie radici.

Presidente, la classe dirigente italiana — ma naturalmente anche quella europea — è consapevole che è in atto una frattura tra il Paese reale e il Paese legale? Cioè, che quanto pensano i politici spesso non corrisponde al sentire comune della gente?

Il Presidente della Repubblica Giorgio Napolitano ha riconosciuto nel 150° anniversario dell’Unità d’Italia una tappa fondamentale per un compiuto esame di coscienza collettivo. Il che significa innanzitutto interrogarsi sul valore della convivenza civile e sulla credibilità delle Istituzioni. I rappresentanti delle Istituzioni sono chiamati ad assolvere al proprio compito secondo quanto sancito nella nostra Costituzione: «con disciplina e onore». I cittadini hanno diritto di chiedere condotte trasparenti e credibili, ma non è convogliando i malesseri sociali su facili vie di fuga che si ristabilisce un ordine ragionevole e un rapporto corretto tra opinione pubblica e Istituzioni. Un “tecnico”, come sono stato chiamato, può liberamente affermare che l’antipolitica e l’antiparlamentarismo causano danni che nel tempo possono dimostrarsi insidiosi. Ogni soggetto, individuale e collettivo, privato e pubblico, è chiamato ad essere “migliore”, in ogni ruolo — piccolo o grande — che assuma. Essere credibili cosa significa? Io credo che significhi soprattutto anteporre il bene comune a ogni interesse di parte. Il senso dello Stato si misura sulla volontà e sulla coerenza di ciascuno di tradurre la coscienza e il sentimento per la democrazia in regola di vita, esigente per se stessi e solidale per gli altri.

Presidente, la crisi è grave. C’è qualcuno, secondo Lei, che a livello internazionale ha interesse a far saltare la moneta unica? Insomma: serve una maggiore integrazione europea, secondo Lei?

Serve una maggiore coesione europea e serve combattere un rischio grave e cioè che l’euro, punto di arrivo, perfezionamento di un processo e pinnacolo molto audacemente innalzato sulla cattedrale dell’integrazione europea, si trasformi invece in un fattore di disintegrazione, di conflitto psicologico. Già solo “psicologico”, un conflitto è molto grave in Europa: tra Stati, tra popoli, tra popoli del Nord, popoli del Sud, come se ci fossero delle “esclusive” distribuite geograficamente tra chi è parsimonioso e serio, e chi è viceversa prono all’indisciplina individuale e collettiva. Ora, pensare che la causa della crisi sia l’euro è non solo un errore economico, ma un pretesto o, peggio, un tentativo di scaricare sull’Europa problemi anche di altre realtà, che coinvolgono ulteriori responsabilità e ben altri interessi. È però responsabilità di noi europei aver lasciato consolidare la sensazione, a volte, che la moneta prevalesse sulla bandiera dell’Europa nella quale — ricordiamocelo sempre! — le stelle sono disposte in un rapporto armonioso, dando il giusto “orientamento”. Oggi, rinunciare all’euro significherebbe abbandonare all’incertezza i più deboli ed i più poveri. L’euro resta uno strumento di straordinaria incidenza nella vita delle persone, ma non è il fine dell’azione comunitaria, che resta il “bene comune”. La crisi si supera alzando la “bandiera dei valori” sopra gli stessi “interessi della moneta”, e riconoscendo come la moneta, a sua volta, non è certo solo un fatto tecnico. L’euro per nascere ha avuto bisogno infatti di essere accompagnato da una serie di vincoli per una responsabile gestione dei bilanci pubblici. Ebbene, in questo senso, l’euro ha indotto tutti i Paesi che hanno voluto abbracciarlo a rispettare meglio anche valori etici fondamentali, come quello dell’equità tra le generazioni. Non è più possibile, in modo irresponsabile, gravare le generazioni future di un pesante fardello di debito pubblico prima ancora che nascano, perché ci sono — in una visione responsabile — dei vincoli posti proprio come regola di convivenza tra i Paesi che partecipano all’euro. Ho voluto fare questa considerazione che mostra come sarebbe veramente paradossale se una punta così avanzata nella costruzione europea dal punto di vista tecnico-politico, ma anche, in fondo, civile ed etico, si trasformasse in un fattore di arretramento.

Presidente Monti, più volte Papa Benedetto XVI e anche i vescovi italiani hanno sollecitato i cattolici a partecipare al rinnovamento etico e culturale della politica nazionale. Come vede Lei questo rinnovato protagonismo dei cattolici nella vita sociale italiana, a servizio del bene comune?

Il magistero del Papa e la sua personale, forte testimonianza, il contributo importante della Santa Sede e della Conferenza episcopale italiana sono elementi propulsivi e critici di fondamentale rilievo. Di fronte al bene comune non si può fuggire. Poco dopo la sua elezione, Benedetto XVI usò un’espressione ancora più chiara: «Non fuggire, per paura, davanti ai lupi». Penso che anche di fronte alla tempesta così prolungata che stiamo vivendo, dobbiamo coltivare sapientemente — e anche pazientemente, direi — la speranza. Alla crisi, cittadini e Istituzioni non devono rispondere fuggendo come di fronte ai lupi, ma restando saldamente uniti. Con le parole del Santo Padre possiamo dire: «con i mezzi della nostra ragione dobbiamo trovare le strade». Il che non significa affatto relegare la fede ad una nicchia di intimistico personalismo: al contrario, significa riaffermarne l’autonomia rispetto alla politica, non renderla — sono parole di Joseph Ratzinger — un «mero corollario teorico ad una determinata visione del mondo».

Presidente, per raggiungere il pareggio di bilancio sono state aumentate le imposte. Lei ritiene che già da quest’anno possano essere gettate le basi per una sorta di quoziente familiare, per rendere più equi i sacrifici?

Il pacchetto di misure per il consolidamento dei conti pubblici, presentato dal Governo al Parlamento, che l’ha prontamente approvato in dicembre, ha chiesto contributi a tutti. In quest’anno 2012 verrà dimostrato, con risultati certi, che alcuni, molti cosiddetti “soliti ignoti” diventeranno presto “soggetti noti” dal punto di vista fiscale. Un primo segno è già contenuto nel Decreto «Salva Italia»: si è prevista una clausola di favore per l’Imu a seconda del numero di figli. In tempo di crisi, e più in generale entro la cornice dell’equità, vale quanto affermava Giuseppe Toniolo: «Chi più può, più deve; chi meno può, più riceve».

Presidente, non crede che un controllo fiscale troppo duro sui comportamenti degli italiani possa diffondere paura tra chi le tasse le paga, senza toccare la piaga dell’evasione fiscale?

Credo di no. È un’azione che non è certo ispirata a mire di vessazione o di accanimento. Non bisogna avere nessuna paura, ma la certezza che chi non rispetta la legge non resterà nell’ombra: chi oggi evade pensa di trarne vantaggio, sicuramente reca danno ai concittadini e offre ai propri figli — in definitiva — un pane avvelenato; consegnerà loro, forse, alla fine della propria vita qualche euro di più, ma li renderà cittadini di un Paese non vivibile.

Presidente, Lei ha detto che il suo Governo non sarà impegnato solo sul fronte economico-finanziario. Da più parti si chiede un cambiamento della legge per la cittadinanza ai minori stranieri. Lei pensa che sia arrivato il tempo per affrontare anche quest’aspetto, che — ricordiamo — è stato evocato anche dal Presidente della Repubblica?

Io avverto come giusta la fatica di depurare il linguaggio da troppi eccessi e forzature che hanno contaminato il dibattito pubblico. Certe espressioni pronunciate fuggono al nostro pieno controllo e non si sa bene a quale approdo possono arrivare. Questo ha spesso — purtroppo — caratterizzato in passato e ancora caratterizza il modo in cui i cittadini e le persone si rapportano ai temi dell’immigrazione e dell’integrazione. Dignità e sicurezza delle persone possono, anzi debbono stare insieme: non si tratta di contemperare valori contrastanti, ma di saldare istanze pienamente legittime che tutti avvertiamo. Non c’è sicurezza senza rispetto, ma non si può obbligare nessuno alla bontà, si deve convincerlo. Serve il “coraggio della verità” che, in molti casi, si traduce nell’esercizio intelligente del buon senso.

Presidente Monti, ci può essere una “via italiana” alle liberalizzazioni, compatibile con le tradizioni e i valori della società nazionale?

Penso proprio di sì, anzi ci può essere una via che valorizza e rende più solide e più genuine quelle tradizioni, senza addossarle ad altri nella vita sociale. Ciò che va sotto il nome di liberalizzazioni è in realtà un insieme di misure per introdurre nell’economia e nella società italiana, con una più sana concorrenza, maggiori spazi per il merito, soprattutto a beneficio dei giovani, degli esclusi. Le tradizioni qualche volta — dobbiamo riconoscerlo — sono diventate corporazioni, sono diventate chiusure corporative e non sempre sono state vissute come un bene di cui essere orgogliosi, ma da far circolare — per così dire — con altri beni in una società composita, che sempre più deve cambiare, si spera in armonia, perché il Paese abbia un ruolo significativo nella comunità internazionale, sia anche competitivo: questo è un termine economico, che denota un atteggiamento di coraggio, di desiderio — anche qui — di non fuggire di fronte ai lupi della competizione internazionale. Ebbene, per me liberalizzare significa — in questo senso che ho cercato di descrivere — offrire benefici, risparmi e benessere a un numero più elevato di cittadini, senza per questo compromettere l’esistenza di nessuno. Anche se in Italia forse è più difficile che altrove, ciascuno può contribuire all’interno del proprio settore ad una operazione di trasparenza contro privilegi eccessivi, per meglio garantire i giusti diritti. Ognuno di noi è produttore di qualche cosa, offre il suo tempo, le sue energie, il suo lavoro nell’ambito di un’impresa, di un’amministrazione, pensa alle tutele che vorrebbe sempre di più avere nel proprio ambito lavorativo, ma è contemporaneamente anche consumatore, è contemporaneamente anche risparmiatore e noi dobbiamo cercare di ricomporre in unità le tutele dei singoli aspetti per avere una società più aperta, più dinamica e — non ricuso il termine — più competitiva.

Presidente, quali sono le vie principali attraverso cui la Chiesa in Italia può contribuire maggiormente a sostenere lo Stato?

Nella formazione, nell’integrazione, nella responsabilità civile e morale, il contributo della Chiesa è davvero prezioso. Quando ho incontrato il Santo Padre ho vissuto un’esperienza profonda e indimenticabile. È stata una visita ufficiale e spero — pur emozionato — di aver rappresentato il mio Paese in modo adeguato. Le mani del Papa sono mani forti che sostengono il peso di molti; sono mani che rassicurano, perché a loro volta si lasciano sorreggere. Il Santo Padre ha chiaramente affermato che «la distinzione tra l’ambito politico e quello religioso» serve a tutelare la libertà religiosa e a riconoscere la responsabilità dello Stato verso i cittadini. Il Presidente Napolitano ha dichiarato che «il senso della laicità dello Stato abbraccia il riconoscimento della dimensione sociale e pubblica del fatto religioso». Mi riconosco pienamente nel criterio della distinzione e della reciproca collaborazione. Certamente la fede è un valore, innanzitutto da vivere e da condividere secondo lo stile e la sensibilità propria di ciascuno, dentro un perimetro di libertà comune a tutti. Considero di estrema e immutata attualità le parole scritte da Joseph Ratzinger nel 1968: «Tanto il credente quanto l’incredulo, ognuno a suo modo, condividono dubbio e fede. Nessuno può sfuggire completamente al dubbio, ma nemmeno alla fede. E chissà mai che proprio il dubbio non divenga il luogo della comunicazione».

  19 gennaio 2012

----------------------------------------------

  DER SPIEGEL  17.1.2012

  http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,809700,00.html

 Gespräch mit Hafenkommandantur

Costa-Kapitän Schettino redet sich raus

 REUTERS  Der Mitschnitt dieses dramatischen Telefongesprächs belastet den Schiffsführer der "Costa Concordia" schwer: Der Kommandant der Küstenwache, Gregorio De Falco, forderte den flüchtigen Kapitän Francesco Schettino wütend und fassungslos zur Rückkehauf dessen sinkendes Schiff auf. Vergeblich.

De Falco: "Hier ist De Falco aus Livorno, spreche ich mit dem Kapitän?"

Schettino: "Ja, guten Abend, Comandante De Falco."

De Falco: "Nennen Sie mir bitte Ihren Namen."

Schettino: "Ich bin Kapitän Schettino, Comandante."

De Falco: "Schettino? Hören Sie, Schettino. Es gibt Menschen, die an Bord eingeschlossen sind. Sie fahren jetzt mit Ihrem Rettungsboot unter die rechte Seite des Bugs. Da ist eine Leiter. Sie gehen die Leiter hoch und an Bord des Schiffs. Sie gehen an Bord und sagen mir, wie viele Personen dort sind. Ist Ihnen das klar? Ich zeichne dieses Gespräch auf, Kapitän Schettino."

Schettino: "Comandante, ich sage Ihnen was…"

De Falco (zunehmend verärgert): "Sprechen Sie laut. Halten Sie Ihre Hand vor das Mikrofon und sprechen Sie lauter, ist das klar?"

Schettino: "In diesem Moment liegt das Schiff auf der Seite…"

De Falco: "Ich habe verstanden. Hören Sie zu. Es gibt Leute, die die Leiter am Bug hinunterklettern. Sie gehen die Leiter in umgekehrter Richtung hoch, gehen auf das Schiff und sagen mir, wie viele Personen an Bord sind und was sie haben. Ist das klar? Sie sagen mir, ob Kinder dabei sind, Frauen oder Menschen, die Unterstützung brauchen. Und Sie sagen mir, wie viele es aus jeder Gruppe sind. Ist das klar? Schauen Sie, Schettino, Sie haben sich vielleicht aus dem Meer gerettet, aber ich bringe Sie… wirklich sehr schlecht… ich sorge dafür, dass Sie echte Schwierigkeiten bekommen… Gehen Sie verdammt noch mal an Bord!"

Schettino: "Comandante, ich bitte Sie…"

De Falco: "Nein, bitte schön, Sie gehen jetzt los, an Bord. Bestätigen Sie mir, dass Sie an Bord gehen…"

Schettino: "Ich kümmere mich um die Rettung, ich bin hier, ich geh nirgendwo hin, ich bin hier."

De Falco: "Was machen Sie, Kapitän?"

Schettino: "Ich koordiniere hier die Rettungsmaßnahmen…"

De Falco: "Was koordinieren Sie da? Gehen Sie an Bord! Koordinieren Sie die Maßnahmen an Bord. Wollen Sie sich weigern?"

Schettino: "Nein, ich weigere mich nicht."

De Falco: "Sie weigern sich, an Bord zu gehen, Kapitän? Sagen Sie mir den Grund, warum Sie nicht dahin gehen?"

Schettino: "Ich gehe da nicht hin, weil hier ein weiteres Rettungsboot angehalten hat."

De Falco (sehr wütend und sehr bestimmt): "Sie gehen an Bord, das ist ein Befehl. Sie müssen keine weiteren Einschätzungen geben. Sie haben erklärt, das Schiff verlassen zu haben. Jetzt habe ich das Kommando. Sie gehen an Bord. Ist das klar? Hören Sie mich nicht? Gehen Sie und rufen Sie mich direkt von Bord aus an." (…)

De Falco: "Los. Das sind schon Leichen, Schettino."

Schettino: "Wie viele Leichen gibt es?"

De Falco: "Ich weiß das nicht. Von einer weiß ich. Ich habe von einer gehört. Aber Sie müssen mir das doch sagen, Jesus."

Schettino: "Ja, aber bedenken Sie doch, dass es dunkel ist, wir sehen hier nichts…"

De Falco: "Und Sie möchten nach Hause zurück, Schettino? Es ist dunkel, und Sie wollen zurück nach Hause? Steigen Sie über die Leiter auf den Bug des Schiffs und sagen Sie mir, wie viele Leute da sind und was Sie brauchen. Jetzt!"

Schettino: "Ich bin hier mit dem Zweiten Offizier…"

De Falco: "Dann geht eben beide rauf. (...) Sie und Ihr Zweiter gehen jetzt an Bord. Ist das klar?"

Schettino: "Comandante, ich will ja an Bord, da ist nur dieses andere Rettungsboot hier, hier sind die anderen Helfer, das Boot ist hier und fest, ich habe die anderen Helfer gerufen…"

ANZEIGE

De Falco: "Das erzählen Sie mir seit einer Stunde. Gehen Sie jetzt an Bord, gehen Sie an B-O-R-D und sagen Sie mir sofort, wie viele Leute das sind."

Schettino: "Ist gut, Comandante."

De Falco: "Gehen Sie, sofort!"

.-----------------------------------------

Quelle: Corriere della Sera

-----------------------------------------------

DIE WELT  11.1.2012

 http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article13809833/Italiens-Premier-gibt-sich-in-Berlin-besonders-zahm.html 

Treffen mit Merkel

Drucken Bewerten 15:49

Italiens Premier gibt sich in Berlin besonders zahm

Deutschland und Italien setzen in der Krise auf Einigkeit. Mario Monti gibt sich versöhnlich, Kanzlerin Merkel lobt die italienischen Sparbemühungen.

Deutschland und Italien setzen demonstrativ auf eine enge Zusammenarbeit im Kampf gegen die Eurokrise. Kanzlerin Angela Merkel sprach dem italienischen Ministerpräsidenten Mario Monti bei dessen Antrittsbesuch in Berlin Respekt für die Sparbemühungen seines Landes aus.

Monti hatte zuvor in einem "Welt Online"-Interview vor zu großem Druck aus Brüssel und antieuropäischen Protesten in Italien gewarnt. Im Kanzleramt gab er sich deutlich versöhnlicher.

Merkel erklärte, Monti und seine Regierung hätten innerhalb kurzer Zeit wichtige Weichenstellungen vorgenommen, die zur Stärkung der wirtschaftlichen Perspektiven Italiens beitrügen. Die Bundesregierung habe das mit großem Respekt verfolgt. Sie gehe davon aus, dass die Arbeit der italienischen Regierung honoriert werde.

Fertigstellung des Fiskalpaktes zur Euro-Stärkung

Gleichzeitig schloss die CDU-Vorsitzende eine Fertigstellung des Fiskalpaktes zur Euro-Stärkung noch Ende dieses Monats nicht aus. Die Verhandlungen seien so weit fortgeschritten, dass man beim nächsten Europäischen Rat am 30. Januar in Brüssel „erhebliche Fortschritte oder gar eine Fertigstellung des Paktes“ erwarten könne, sagte sie.

Monti und Merkel bestätigten außerdem ein Treffen mit dem französischen Staatspräsidenten Nicolas Sarkozy am 20. Januar in Rom.

Merkel hatte am Montag mit dem französischen Staatspräsidenten Nicolas Sarkozy in Berlin über die Euro-Krise gesprochen.

Es sei ihm „sehr wichtig“, dass die drei Länder eng zusammenarbeiteten und Europa Lösungsmöglichkeiten anböten, sagte Monti.

Verspätung durch intensiven Austausch

Monti hatte zuvor in einem „Welt Online“-Interview gemahnt, Deutschland und Frankreich sollten sich in der EU „nicht allzu sehr erheben“. Den schlimmsten Fehler in der EU in den vergangenen zehn Jahren hätten Deutschland und Frankreich begangen, als sie 2003 die Maastricht-Kriterien missachtet hätten.

Er könne mit seiner Politik keinen Erfolg haben, „wenn sich die Politik der EU nicht ändert. Und wenn das nicht geschieht, könnte Italien – das immer ein sehr europafreundliches Land gewesen war – in die Arme von Populisten flüchten“.

Nach dem Treffen sprach Merkel von einem „sehr wichtigen Austausch“. Mit Blick auf eine Verschiebung der Pressekonferenz um gut eine halbe Stunde, sagte Merkel, dies sei dem intensiven Austausch geschuldet und nicht etwa, „weil wir uns in irgendeiner Wiese gestritten haben“.

Italiens Haushaltsdefizit ist derweil infolge des strengen Sparkurses der Regierung im dritten Quartal 2011 auf 2,7 Prozent des Bruttoinlandsprodukts (BIP) zurückgegangen, wie das italienische Statistikinstitut Istat mitteilte. Dies sei der niedrigste Stand seit dem vierten Quartal 2008: Im Jahr zuvor hatte es in diesem Zeitraum noch bei 3,5 Prozent gelegen.

Monti dankt für den "herzlichen Empfang"

Der seit November amtierende Monti sagte, er sei dankbar für den herzlichen Empfang in Berlin, und lobte Deutschland als Beispiel für Haushaltsdisziplin. Italien habe sich bei der Bekämpfung der Finanzkrise in einer ersten Phase auf die Konsolidierung des Haushalts konzentriert. Dies habe seinen Landsleuten erhebliche Anstrengungen abgefordert.

„Es war wirklich ein großes Zeichen der Reife seitens der Italiener“, sagte Monti in der deutschen Übersetzung. Sein Land sei bereit, in der EU konstruktiv für eine Stabilisierung der Gemeinschaftswährung mitzuarbeiten.

Zum Thema Finanztransaktionssteuer äußerte sich Monti zurückhaltend. Er denke, dass es grundsätzlich sinnvoll wäre, diese Art der Besteuerung von Börsengeschäften in der aktuellen Lage zu berücksichtigen.

Italien habe vor seiner Regierungsübernahme eine ablehnende Haltung gehabt, sagte Monti. „Wir stehen dem jetzt offener gegenüber“, betonte er und erklärte, Italien werde eine Einführung auf der Ebene der EU unterstützen. Er sei nicht sicher, ob eine Einführung nur auf Ebene der Euro-Länder Sinn mache.

Notfalls auch nur auf Ebene der Euro-Länder

Merkel hatte sich bereits am Montag für eine Finanztransaktionssteuer notfalls auch nur auf Ebene der Euro-Länder ausgesprochen. Am Mittwoch bekräftigte sie, dass es sich dabei um ihre persönliche Meinung handele. Sie verwies zudem auf einen entsprechenden CDU-Parteitagsbeschluss.

Es sei aber völlig klar, dass es für ihre Regierungshandeln die Gemeinsamkeit aller Koalitionspartner brauche. Die FDP ist derzeit gegen eine Steuer nur für die Länder, die den Euro als Währung haben. Da es keine Einigkeit über die Einführung nur in der Euro-Zone gebe, könne die Regierung dies international nicht vertreten, sagte Merkel.

.------------------------------------------

   OSSERVATORE ROMANO 9.1.2012

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2012/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20120109_diplomatic-corps_en.html

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS
ACCREDITED TO THE HOLY SEE

Sala Regia
Monday, 9 January 2012

[Video]

Your Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is always a particular pleasure for me to receive you, the distinguished members of the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See, in the splendid setting of this Sala Regia, and personally to offer you my cordial good wishes for the New Year. Before all else, I thank your Dean, Ambassador Alejandro Valladares Lanza, and the Vice-Dean, Ambassador Jean-Claude Michel, for the respectful sentiments which they expressed on your behalf, and I offer a special greeting to all those taking part in our meeting for the first time. Through you my good wishes extend to all the nations which you represent and with which the Holy See maintains diplomatic relations. It is a joy for us that Malaysia joined this community in the past year. The dialogue which you maintain with the Holy See favours the exchange of views and information, as well as cooperation in areas of common interest which are bilateral or multilateral in nature. Your presence today evokes the important contribution which the Church makes to your societies in areas such as education, health care and social services. A sign of the cooperation existing between the Catholic Church and States is seen in the Accords reached in 2011 with Azerbaijan, Montenegro and Mozambique. The first has already been ratified; I trust that this will also be the case with the two others, and that those currently under negotiation will soon be concluded. The Holy See also desires to establish a fruitful dialogue with international and regional organizations, and in this context I note with satisfaction that the member states of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) have accepted the appointment of an Apostolic Nuncio accredited to that organization. Nor can I fail to mention that last December the Holy See strengthened its longstanding cooperation with the International Organization for Migration by becoming a full member. This is a sign of the commitment of the Holy See and the Catholic Church, alongside the international community, in the search for suitable solutions to this phenomenon which presents a number of aspects ranging from the safeguarding of the dignity of persons to concern for the common good of both the communities which receive them and those from which they come.

In the course of the year just ended, I personally met many Heads of State and Government, as well as the distinguished representatives of your nations who took part in the ceremony of the Beatification of my beloved predecessor, Pope John Paul II. Representatives of your countries were also graciously present for the celebrations marking the sixtieth anniversary of my priestly ordination. To all of them, and to those whom I met during my Apostolic Journeys to Croatia, San Marino, Spain, Germany and Benin, I renew my gratitude for the kindness which they showed me. My thoughts also turn in a special way to the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean which in 2011 celebrated the bicentenary of their independence. On 12 December last, they emphasized their bond with the Catholic Church and with the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles by taking part, alongside distinguished representatives of the ecclesial community and institutional authorities, in the solemn celebration held in Saint Peter’s Basilica, during which I announced my intention to visit Mexico and Cuba in the near future. Finally, I wish to greet South Sudan, which last July became a sovereign state. I am happy that this was achieved peacefully. Sadly, tensions and clashes have ensued in recent months, and I express my hope that all may unite their efforts to enable the people of Sudan and South Sudan to experience at last a period of peace, freedom and development.

Your Excellencies,

Today’s meeting traditionally takes place at the end of the Christmas season, during which the Church celebrates the coming of the Saviour. He comes in the dark of night and so his presence is immediately a source of light and joy (cf. Lk 2:9-10). Truly the world is gloomy wherever it is not brightened by God’s light! Truly the world is dark wherever men and women no longer acknowledge their bond with the Creator and thereby endanger their relation to other creatures and to creation itself. The present moment is sadly marked by a profound disquiet and the various crises – economic, political and social – are a dramatic expression of this.

Here I cannot fail to address before all else the grave and disturbing developments of the global economic and financial crisis. The crisis has not only affected families and businesses in the more economically advanced countries where it originated, creating a situation in which many people, especially the young, have felt disoriented and frustrated in their aspirations for a serene future, but it has also had a profound impact on the life of developing countries. We must not lose heart, but instead resolutely rediscover our way through new forms of commitment. The crisis can and must be an incentive to reflect on human existence and on the importance of its ethical dimension, even before we consider the mechanisms governing economic life: not only in an effort to stem private losses or to shore up national economies, but to give ourselves new rules which ensure that all can lead a dignified life and develop their abilities for the benefit of the community as a whole.

I would like next to point out that the effects of the present moment of uncertainty are felt particularly by the young. Their disquiet has given rise in recent months to agitation which has affected various regions, at times severely. I think first and foremost of North Africa and the Middle East, where young people, among others, who are suffering from poverty and unemployment and are fearful of an uncertain future, have launched what has developed into a vast movement calling for reforms and a more active share in political and social life. At present it is hard to make a definitive assessment of recent events and to understand fully their consequences for the stability of the region. Initial optimism has yielded to an acknowledgment of the difficulties of this moment of transition and change, and it seems evident to me that the best way to move forward is through the recognition of the inalienable dignity of each human person and of his or her fundamental rights. Respect for the person must be at the centre of institutions and laws; it must lead to the end of all violence and forestall the risk that due concern for popular demands and the need for social solidarity turn into mere means for maintaining or seizing power. I invite the international community to dialogue with the actors in the current processes, in a way respectful of peoples and in the realization that the building of stable and reconciled societies, opposed to every form of unjust discrimination, particularly religious discrimination, represents a much vaster horizon than that of short-term electoral gains. I am deeply concerned for the people of those countries where hostilities and acts of violence continue, particularly Syria, where I pray for a rapid end to the bloodshed and the beginning of a fruitful dialogue between the political forces, encouraged by the presence of independent observers. In the Holy Land, where tensions between Palestinians and Israelis affect the stability of the entire Middle East, it is necessary that the leaders of these two peoples adopt courageous and farsighted decisions in favour of peace. I was pleased to learn that, following an initiative of the Kingdom of Jordan, dialogue has been resumed; I express my hope that it will be maintained, and that it will lead to a lasting peace which guarantees the right of the two peoples to dwell in security in sovereign states and within secure and internationally recognized borders. For its part, the international community must become more creative in developing initiatives which promote this peace process and are respectful of the rights of both parties. I am also following closely the developments in Iraq, and I deplore the attacks that have recently caused so much loss of life; I encourage the nation’s leaders to advance firmly on the path to full national reconciliation.

Blessed John Paul II stated that “the path of peace is at the same time the path of the young”,[1] inasmuch as young people embody “the youth of the nations and societies, the youth of every family and of all humanity”.[2] Young people thus impel us to take seriously their demand for truth, justice and peace. For this reason, I chose them as the subject of my annual World Day of Peace Message, entitled Educating Young People in Justice and Peace. Education is a crucial theme for every generation, for it determines the healthy development of each person and the future of all society. It thus represents a task of primary importance in this difficult and demanding time. In addition to a clear goal, that of leading young people to a full knowledge of reality and thus of truth, education needs settings. Among these, pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman. This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself. The family unit is fundamental for the educational process and for the development both of individuals and States; hence there is a need for policies which promote the family and aid social cohesion and dialogue. It is in the family that we become open to the world and to life and, as I pointed out during my visit to Croatia, “openness to life is a sign of openness to the future”.[3] In this context of openness to life, I note with satisfaction the recent sentence of the Court of Justice of the European Union forbidding patenting processes relative to human embryonic stem cells, as well as the resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe condemning prenatal selection on the basis of sex.

More generally, and with particular reference to the West, I am convinced that legislative measures which not only permit but at times even promote abortion for reasons of convenience or for questionable medical motives compromise the education of young people and, as a result, the future of humanity.

Continuing our reflection, a similarly essential role in the development of the person is played by educational institutions: these are the first instances which cooperate with the family and they can hardly function properly unless they share the same goals as the family. There is a need to implement educational policies which ensure that schooling is available to everyone and which, in addition to promoting the cognitive development of the individual, show concern for a balanced personal growth, including openness to the Transcendent. The Catholic Church has always been particularly active in the field of education and schooling, making a valued contribution alongside that of state institutions. It is my hope that this contribution will be acknowledged and prized also by the legislation of the various nations.

In this perspective. it is clear that an effective educational programme also calls for respect for religious freedom. This freedom has individual, collective and institutional dimensions. We are speaking of the first of human rights, for it expresses the most fundamental reality of the person. All too often, for various reasons, this right remains limited or is flouted. I cannot raise this subject without first paying tribute to the memory of the Pakistani Minister Shahbaz Bhatti, whose untiring battle for the rights of minorities ended in his tragic death. Sadly, we are not speaking of an isolated case. In many countries Christians are deprived of fundamental rights and sidelined from public life; in other countries they endure violent attacks against their churches and their homes. At times they are forced to leave the countries they have helped to build because of persistent tensions and policies which frequently relegate them to being second-class spectators of national life. In other parts of the world, we see policies aimed at marginalizing the role of religion in the life of society, as if it were a cause of intolerance rather than a valued contribution to education in respect for human dignity, justice and peace. In the past year religiously motivated terrorism has also reaped numerous victims, especially in Asia and in Africa; for this reason, as I stated in Assisi, religious leaders need to repeat firmly and forcefully that “this is not the true nature of religion. It is the antithesis of religion and contributes to its destruction”.[4] Religion cannot be employed as a pretext for setting aside the rules of justice and of law for the sake of the intended “good”. In this context I am proud to recall, as I did in my native country, that the Christian vision of man was the true inspiration for the framers of Germany’s Basic Law, as indeed it was for the founders of a united Europe. I would also like to bring up several encouraging signs in the area of religious freedom. I am referring to the legislative amendment whereby the public juridical personality of religious minorities was recognized in Georgia; I think too of the sentence of the European Court of Human Rights upholding the presence of the crucifix in Italian schoolrooms. It is also appropriate for me to make particular mention of Italy at the conclusion of the 150^th anniversary of her political unification. Relations between the Holy See and Italy experienced moments of difficulty following the unification. In the course of time, however, concord and the mutual desire for cooperation, each within its proper domain, prevailed for the promotion of the common good. I hope that Italy will continue to foster a stable relationship between Church and State, and thus serve as an example to which other nations can look with respect and interest.

On the continent of Africa, to which I returned during my recent visit to Benin, it is essential that cooperation between Christian communities and Governments favour progress along the path of justice, peace and reconciliation, where respect is shown for members of all ethnic groups and all religions. It is painful to realize that in different countries of the continent this goal remains distant. I think in particular of the renewed outbreak of violence in Nigeria, as we saw from the attacks against several churches during the Christmas period, the aftermath of the civil war in Côte d’Ivoire, the continuing instability in the Great Lakes region and the humanitarian emergency in the countries of the Horn of Africa. I once again appeal to the international community to make every effort to find a solution to the crisis which has gone on for years in Somalia.

Finally I would stress that education, correctly understood, cannot fail to foster respect for creation. We cannot disregard the grave natural calamities which in 2011 affected various regions of South-East Asia, or ecological disasters like that of the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan. Environmental protection and the connection between fighting poverty and fighting climate change are important areas for the promotion of integral human development. For this reason, I hope that, pursuant to the XVII session of the Conference of States Parties to the UN Convention on Climate Change recently concluded in Durban, the international community will prepare for the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (“Rio + 20”) as an authentic “family of nations” and thus with a great sense of solidarity and responsibility towards present and future generations.

Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

The birth of the Prince of Peace teaches us that life does not end in a void, that its destiny is not decay but eternal life. Christ came so that we might have life and have it in abundance (cf. Jn 10:10). “Only when the future is certain as a positive reality does it become possible to live the present as well”.[5] Inspired by the certainty of faith, the Holy See continues to offer its proper contribution to the international community in accordance with the twofold desire clearly enunciated by the Second Vatican Council, whose fiftieth anniversary takes place this year: to proclaim the lofty grandeur of our human calling and the presence within us of a divine seed, and to offer humanity sincere cooperation in building a sense of universal fraternity corresponding to this calling.[6] In this spirit I renew to all of you, and to your families and your staff, my most cordial good wishes for the New Year.

Thank you for your attention.

 .------------------------------------------

THE ECONOMIST  7.1.2012

http://www.economist.com/node/21542453

Austerity in Italy

Terrorising the taxman

Some Italians take violent exception to paying taxes

Jan 7th 2012 | ROME | from the print edition

         ITALIANS’ reactions to four stringent austerity packages have so far been fairly muted. Rome saw a violent protest last October, but it seemed to be directed at a range of targets, from the then government of Silvio Berlusconi to capitalism in general. In recent weeks, however, there have been at le   last eight acts of terrorist violence or intimidation aimed at the authorities’ efforts to tighten Italy’s public finances. The target is the tax-collection ser vice, Equitalia.

On December 9th the agency’s director-general, Marco Cuccagna, suffered hand and face injuries when a parcel bomb exploded at his office in Rome. The following week another parcel bomb was intercepted at Equitalia’s headquarters. Police have blamed a shadowy organisation called the Informal Anarchist Federation (FAI), which has claimed responsibility for several low-intensity terrorist campaigns since 2003.

The FAI has been variously described as a terrorist franchising operation and an umbrella structure for more than a dozen equally spectral anarchist organisations. But none of its members has ever been caught, and some security officials doubt whether it exists as anything more than a set of initials for use by the angry and violently inclined.

Moreover, subsequent operations against Equitalia have involved tactics not previously associated with the FAI. Between December 20th and 22nd letters containing (harmless) white powder were delivered to the agency’s offices in Rome and Milan, and to the office of the new prime minister, Mario Monti. Since then three rudimentary bombs have exploded outside Equitalia branches, and the agency’s director in Turin has received a letter containing bullets, an intimidatory device beloved of Mafiosi.

But then Equitalia is hated by more than just rogue anarchists. The agency was formed in 2006 to take over tax-collection operations that had previously been carried out reluctantly by banks and their subsidiaries. It has since brought about a silent revolution. With the help of streamlined judicial procedures it has proved itself more efficient at winkling euros out of Italian pockets. But, like tax-collection bodies elsewhere, it has also been accused of unreasonable or even inhumane behaviour.

This week Beppe Grillo, a famous comedian and blogger, said that Equitalia’s demands for payment had become “the terror of every Italian”. He called for a denunciation of the terrorist campaign but also for an understanding of the motives behind it. Politicians condemned his appeal. But in several cases their remarks were qualified with proposals for a rethink of Equitalia’s powers and methods. Until Italy starts reducing its debt, equivalent to 120% of GDP, that is unlikely to be a priority for Mr Monti’s government, or any other.

from the print edition | Europe

 ---------------------------------------------------------

THE GUARDIAN  7.1.2011

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2012/jan/06/archive-italy-feels-its-way-back-1948

Series: From the Guardian archive

Previous | Index

 From the archive, 6 January 1948: Italy feels its way back into world politics

Originally published in the Guardian on 6 January 1948

• The Guardian, Friday 6 January 2012
• Article history

The Italian Republic has entered the first year of its formal existence. After eighteen months of wrangling in committees the Constituent Assembly has finished its work and approved the new Constitution. At the beginning of April new elections are to give the Republic its first real Parliament. The British and American occupying forces have left.

One or two friendly gestures have done something to take the edge off the bitter feeling most Italians have had that their country had come off worse than it deserved in the peace treaty. Recently a French-Italian committee had discussions about a possible future Customs union between Italy and France. In spite of misgivings about the fate of Trieste and the future of the African colonies, the Italians have been slowly feeling their way back into the world of political relationships.

Economically their position is far less secure. Industrial recovery has gone by fits and starts: the recent crisis in the silk industry due to a loss of export markets is a striking example. The urgent need of American help is obvious, and would be universally recognised if it had not, as elsewhere, been made a political issue. At the Communist party congress in Milan on Sunday Signor Togliatti put that issue neatly into its electoral context when he said that American help was outside party control and for all he knew might be used for Christian Democrat party election funds. Unless the April elections finally settle the struggle for power now in progress, 1948 will not be a very constructive year for Italy.

The new Constitution was approved by an overwhelming majority. This is encouraging but it still remains to make the Constitution work. It may turn out that the various parties reached agreement in principle only at the cost of mental reservations about its interpretation in practice. The majority that voted confidence in Signor de Gasperi's new Cabinet some days ago was a good deal smaller. The Cabinet of Christian Democrats has been broadened by the inclusion of Republicans and Saragat Socialists. The coalition is secure in the Assembly; but its real strength in terms of popular support will not be known until the elections. The Communists and Nenni Socialists intend to put it to a severe test, and they have plenty of material to work on. There is inflation. There is widespread unemployment.

A writer in a Conservative economic journal recently described the situation as one of "private deflation, public inflation." Signor de Gasperi told the Assembly that "either the Marshall Plan succeeds and Europe moves towards reconstruction or Italy goes down with Europe."

.-------------------------------------------

THE NEW YORK TIMES  6.1.2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/business/global/more-time-to-buy-in-italy-but-is-that-a-good-thing.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=europe

More Time to Buy in Italy, but Is That a Good Thing?

By ELISABETTA POVOLEDO

Published: January 6, 2012

.

Introduced in December as part of Prime Minister Mario Monti’s crisis-averting package, known as Save Italy, the measure permits shopkeepers everywhere to set their own hours and sharply reduces the norms that once regulated entrepreneurs trying to set up shop.

Although many consumers cheered, thrilled at the prospect of buying milk, bread or whatever after hours, small-enterprise associations — as well as number of regional government leaders — have denounced the new rules, calling them the death knell for mom-and-pop stores already struggling in Italy’s recessionary economy.

“People don’t buy in a moment of recession. If your buying power is limited, that isn’t going to change if a store stays open later,” said Valter Giammaria, president of the Rome chapter of Confesercenti, an organization for small and midsize businesses. His organization, he said, is considering shutting down stores in protest.

Mr. Giammaria said that small retailers in Italy were already being squeezed by competition with supermarkets, not to mention the slumping economy, and that in Rome alone 10,000 small shops had closed in the past three years, putting about 35,000 people out of work.

“The government has to rethink this whole thing. Otherwise it is only going to help large chain stores,” he said. “We’re on the side of small retailers.”

By that he means people like Angelo Salis, who operates a tiny bar in central Rome with his grown children and fears having to work longer hours — and Sundays — to stay in the game. “It’s fine if you own a large business, with lots of employees, but when it’s all in the family, I just don’t know,” Mr. Salis said, shaking his head.

Local residents’ groups are also on the warpath, fearful that giving bars carte blanche will make for sleepless nights.

Mr. Monti’s fledgling government has earmarked several ways in which to encourage growth in the Italian economy, which has been at a near standstill for the past decade. These include opening up closed occupations and measures to promote competition.

But judging by the protests against deregulation of business hours these days and the failed attempts last month to loosen up access to professions like taxi operators and pharmacists, Mr. Monti is facing an uphill battle.

Presidents of several Italian regions, which have traditionally overseen laws regulating some aspects of retail commerce, complain that the legislation is encroaching on their territory and have pledged to fight the changes in court. “Consumerism is not the right response to the crisis,” Enrico Rossi, president of the Tuscany region, told ANSA, a news agency. “It is an insult to our cultural identity, out traditions and our history.”

“We expect the church will make its voice known,” he added. The Vatican has so far kept quiet on the issue.

Some economists who study the retail sector acknowledge that keeping stores open longer is unlikely to increase spending, especially at a time when Italians are paying higher taxes and tightening their belts. But the effort to encourage competition is a welcome signal in a country with a corporate mentality that dates to the guilds of the Middle Ages and is averse to change.

“Economically, this won’t change anything,” predicted Roberto Ravazzoni at the Center for Research on Marketing and Services at Bocconi University in Milan. What counts is the spirit of the reform, he said, “because it is moving towards greater competition. The government’s just started with something easy.”

The issue has “made a lot of noise,” he added, “because it touches on so many aspects of society, like work, labor, family, as well as religion. It’s way beyond economics.” Still, though the economic impact might be limited, the social consequences will not be, Mr. Ravazzoni predicted, “giving options to people crushed by time.”

As salaries are unlikely to grow in the current climate, “giving them the option of when to buy, we can at least simplify the life of consumers,” he said.

The new opening hours could also be a challenge to entrepreneurial creativity, which is also expected to benefit from the loosening of regulations in opening a business. Mr. Ravazzoni said the development of block or neighborhood associations to create a nucleus of commercial activity had been successful in other countries.

Many retailers complain that their sector has been unfairly singled out. Giuseppe Roscioli, president of the Rome chapter of Confcommercio, another retailers’ association fighting the new hours, said that opening up competition “might not be so bad,” but, he added, “it should apply to everything,” including taxis and pharmacies.

Many people agree and are urging the government to open other protected sectors, like banking and insurance, as well as public utilities and gasoline stations. “That’s where Italy can really recover money and efficiency and offer lower prices to consumers,” Mr. Ravazzoni said.

There is no Europe-wide legislation regulating commerce, and opening hours can vary vastly among countries and among cities within those countries. According to RegioData, a research institute in Vienna, Germany and Austria are among the most regulated countries in terms of opening hours, while things are looser in France, Spain and Britain.

In Italy, state, regional and municipal legislation have coexisted for decades, and the current changes further muddle the issue. “It is a bit perplexing to have regional laws that go against federal legislation,” said Davide Bordoni, municipal counselor for commerce in Rome, one of the first cities to adhere to the new law. “Thirty percent of Rome residents live off commerce, so we didn’t want to be unprepared,” he said. Like other tourist cities in Italy, Rome already enjoyed more flexible hours under a previous law.

Regional governments have 90 days to adopt the national legislation.

Some retailers are skeptical about whether the new regulations will make much difference. “Rome isn’t New York City,” said Marina Moltedo, who works at Edo City, a clothing shop in Rome founded by the designer Alessandra Giannetti. “Italians don’t have the right mentality” to shop after hours.

Ms. Moltedo said that on the few occasions when City Hall permitted stores to stay open late at night, people browsed more than bought.

“If you’re going to stay open just to be a museum, then why not just open up galleries instead,” she said.

But amid all the grumbling, consumer groups have welcomed the change. “A more open market is good for consumers, offering a wider variety of products at lower prices,” said Carlo Pileri, the president of Adoc, an Italian consumers’ rights group. “Italian commerce has too long been run by a lobby averse to modernization.” And in any case, the new rules are an option, “not an obligation,” he said.

After dismal pre-Christmas activity, anticipation was high for Italy’s traditional winter sale period, which started Thursday. Whether the new hours will make a difference remains to be seen, but some merchants were optimistic.

“We’re in the center of Rome surrounded by bars,” and business has been good said Noemi Verzilli, a salesclerk at Taba, an ethnic clothing and knickknack store in Rome’s Campo de’ Fiori that had taken advantage of past legislation to stretch opening hours. “We’re so central, it would be stupid to stay closed.”

-----------------------------------------

L LE FIGARO 4.1.2012

h  http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2012/01/04/01003-20120104ARTFIG00541-mario-monti-l-europe-n-a-plus-a-avoir-peur-de-l-italie.php

     Mario Monti : «L'Europe n'a plus à avoir peur de l'Italie»

    Mots clés : Zone euro, Crise, Italie, Mario Monti, Nicolas Sarkozy, François Fillon

    Par Richard Heuzé Mis à jour le 04/01/2012 à 19:59 | publié le 04/01/2012 à 19:17

 INTERVIEW - Le président du Conseil italien se félicite du «flegme tout britannique» avec lequel ses compatriotes ont accepté des «mesures très lourdes» pour faire face à la crise et répondre aux exigences de Bruxelles.

Avant son déjeuner vendredi à Paris avec François Fillon, suivi d'entretiens avec Nicolas Sarkozy, l'économiste et ancien commissaire européen Mario Monti développe sa vision de l'Europe, dans sa première grande interview internationale depuis son investiture à la présidence du Conseil le 18 novembre dernier.

Le FIGARO.- À quoi attribuez-vous l'attaque massive et brutale des marchés contre l'économie italienne l'été dernier, alors que les indices économiques étaient plutôt bons?

Mario MONTI.- Nos «fondamentaux» sont effectivement bons, sinon très bons. L'Italie n'a pas connu le grand boom immobilier de l'Espagne ou le grand boom financier de l'Irlande qui se sont révélés très néfastes. Les ménages italiens ont un taux d'épargne réelle très élevé. Ils ont peu recours à l'endettement. Le secteur bancaire s'est tenu à l'écart des opérations financières très sophistiquées qui ont affecté le monde anglo-saxon. La crise de l'économie réelle a été moins grave que dans certains pays. Quant à l'endettement du secteur public, il reste contenu. Les marchés ont attaqué l'Italie vers la mi-2011, plus tard que dans d'autres pays. Deux raisons à cela: la majorité au pouvoir a remis en question sa politique d'austérité budgétaire après des élections régionales mauvaises pour elle en mai, ce qui a déstabilisé les marchés. En outre, le gouvernement précédent n'a pas voulu admettre la grave insuffisance de la croissance et négligé les politiques de libéralisation qui auraient remédié à cette carence. Vers juin-juillet, les agences ont lancé des mises en garde qui ont ouvert la voie aux attaques des marchés. L'Italie est pourtant mieux placée que l'Espagne concernant son déficit, même si sa dette (120% du PIB) est historiquement plus élevée. Bruxelles prévoyait en octobre un excédent «primaire» (qui exclut le service de la dette) égal à 4% du PIB en 2013. Après l'adoption de notre plan d'austérité en décembre, nous avons estimé que cet excédent atteindra au moins 5% du PIB, contre une moyenne européenne de 0,5%.

L'Europe peut-elle avoir encore peur de l'Italie au moment où la Grèce et Espagne connaissent de nouvelles difficultés?

L'Europe n'a plus aucune raison d'avoir peur de l'Italie. Nous disposons d'une matière première très rare en Europe, un consensus de fond de l'opinion publique en faveur de l'intégration européenne. J'ai été commissaire européen pendant dix ans. Le président de la République italienne est un Européen très convaincu. Nous avons mis l'Europe au cœur de nos préoccupations. Centrant notre action sur le respect des contraintes européennes que Silvio Berlusconi s'est trouvé obligé d'accepter dans une situation d'urgence, y compris le retour à l'équilibre budgétaire en 2013 que nous avons traduit en mesures concrètes. Aucune crainte donc. Les Italiens ont accepté avec un flegme presque britannique les mesures très lourdes qui leur étaient imposées. Ils ont fait preuve d'un sens des responsabilités admirable. Ne faisant que trois heures de grève. Ils ont compris que les contraintes européennes sont imposées pour les générations futures. Tous les analystes conviennent que l'Italie a fait son devoir.

Quelle contribution attendez-vous de l'Europe?

Au Conseil européen des 5 et 6 décembre à Bruxelles, je me suis battu pour que le Fonds de soutien aux dettes souveraines (le FESF) soit mis en œuvre rapidement et renforcé substantiellement. Son niveau actuel reste très insatisfaisant. Pour l'instant, l'Italie reste victime d'un risque «zone euro». Il faut éliminer ce risque. On m'a surnommé le plus allemand des économistes italiens. Mais comment faire une politique européenne de croissance sans enfreindre les politiques budgétaires de rigueur? Je suis intimement convaincu que l'Europe tout entière peut trouver des avantages considérables en termes de croissance dans une intégration réelle plus poussée. Les pays de l'eurozone se sont concentrés sur l'union monétaire en délaissant l'union économique. Cela impliquerait de créer un véritable marché ouvert, étendu à tous les secteurs. Souvent les pays de la zone euro sont moins avancés que ceux qui n'ont pas adopté la monnaie unique comme le Royaume-Uni, le Danemark et la Suède. Si l'Europe rattrape ce retard, elle obtiendra des gains de productivité considérables. José Manuel Barroso m'avait demandé un rapport sur ce sujet. Michel Barnier l'a traduit en projet de traité. L'enjeu est au moins aussi important que l'euro.

De quoi allez-vous discuter vendredi avec Nicolas Sarkozy?

Nos approches sur la gouvernance économique de l'Europe sont largement concordantes. Peut-être toutefois suis-je plus convaincu que la France de l'importance d'associer à cette construction européenne non seulement les pays ne faisant pas partie de la zone euro, mais aussi, autant que possible, le Royaume-Uni. J'ai assisté à la fracture qui s'est produite à Bruxelles sur les convergences budgétaires. L'Europe a bien fait de dire «non merci» aux conditions plutôt régressives que voulait imposer David Cameron, comme le vote à l'unanimité sur la régulation financière. Cela alourdirait et ralentirait le processus de décision. En contrepartie si, pour accepter un tel traité, le Royaume-Uni demandait, comme c'est dans l'ADN britannique, de prendre plus au sérieux le marché unique, exigence également très ressentie par les Scandinaves, je suis convaincu que l'Europe continentale aurait tout intérêt à l'accepter. Cela permettrait de faire progresser l'intégration européenne.

L'Italie a de tout temps été fortement allergique au «directoire» franco-allemand. Vous-même avez manifesté une forte contrariété. Comment devrait évoluer la concertation européenne?

L'harmonie franco-allemande est une condition strictement nécessaire au bon fonctionnement et au développement de l'Europe. Elle n'est pas suffisante. Deux pays sur 27, fussent-ils les deux plus grands, ne peuvent décider pour tous les autres. Je suis en faveur de l'approche communautaire, pas simplement par idéal, mais parce qu'elle évite les dérives de la méthode intergouvernementale dont nous avons fait l'expérience en 2003 lors de la discussion du pacte de stabilité. Je suis très sensible au fait que Nicolas Sarkozy et Angela Merkel aient fait preuve d'ouverture vers l'Italie, lors de nos entretiens du 23 novembre à Strasbourg. J'apporterai toute la contribution de l'Italie, mais toujours en essayant de rendre minimales les géométries variables dans le processus communautaire.

Paris demande le renforcement des sanctions contre l'Iran. Êtes-vous d'accord?

Nous devons encourager un dialogue ouvert et transparent avec l'Iran. Si cela s'avérait impossible et si l'Iran persistait dans sa politique d'armement nucléaire, l'Italie serait prête à participer à toute nouvelle sanction imposée par l'Europe. L'Italie importe 13% de son brut d'Iran, la France 3%. Un embargo sur le pétrole est envisageable à condition qu'il reste graduel et qu'en soient exclues les livraisons qui servent à rembourser le milliard d'euros de dettes que l'Iran a contracté envers notre compagnie nationale ENI.

EDF a pris en décembre le contrôle d'Edison, le n°3 italien de l'énergie, grâce à la médiation active du gouvernement italien. La défense à tous crins de l'«italianité» prônée par votre prédécesseur est-elle révolue?

Nous nous sentons très européens. Nous estimons que tout l'espace européen doit être ouvert à toutes les entreprises européennes, sans restriction de nationalité.

«Je reçois un soutien considérable de Silvio Berlusconi»

LE FIGARO. - Comment expliquez-vous le soutien massif que vous avez reçu des forces politiques?

Mario MONTI. - Les partis ont pris la mesure de la situation financière dramatique dans laquelle se trouvait le pays. L'animosité entre les deux pôles avait atteint des niveaux insoutenables. Le fossé se creusait entre eux et l'opinion publique. Il leur devenait impossible d'adopter les mesures structurelles nécessaires pour lutter contre le déficit et favoriser le retour à la croissance.

Pourquoi pensez-vous qu'ils ont accepté la nomination d'un gouvernement «technique», une nouveauté pour l'Italie?

Ils ont fait preuve de grande responsabilité en suivant les orientations du président de la République, Giorgio Napolitano, qui souhaitait apaiser le climat. Mon «gouvernement d'engagement national» ne peut vivre que s'il est soutenu par une large majorité. Tous les partis lui ont accordé leur confiance à la mi-novembre et, ce qui était moins évident, tous sauf deux ont voté juste avant Noël des mesures très impopulaires. Je leur rends hommage. Ils ne sont pas sortis de scène. Je les consulte. Je discute avec eux. Ils restent des protagonistes.

Silvio Berlusconi menace régulièrement de retourner aux urnes si vous ne tenez pas compte de ses indications.

Aucun parti, même le sien, ne peut se plaindre de n'être pas consulté. C'est mon souhait, mon intérêt, ma pratique courante. J'aurais même été heureux que certains ministres de mon gouvernement soient l'expression de ces partis. Ils ont préféré ne pas en faire partie. Je respecte leur choix. N'étant lié ni à la droite, ni au centre, ni à la gauche, nous écoutons toutes leurs propositions, même les plus exigeantes. Y compris celles des syndicats. Cela dit, consulter n'est pas décider. Il nous appartient de faire la synthèse.

Craignez-vous que Silvio Berlusconi fasse tomber votre gouvernement?

Je n'ai pas cette crainte. Mon gouvernement peut tomber demain. Nous ne sommes pas ici pour survivre, mais pour accomplir un bon travail. Je ne suis pas sûr toutefois que l'un ou l'autre des partis prendrait d'un cœur léger une telle décision devant les électeurs.

De mon prédécesseur Silvio Berlusconi que je rencontre souvent, je reçois un soutien considérable. Il faut comprendre aussi son état d'esprit: il a remporté trois élections démocratiques, a gouverné pendant neuf ans et a accepté le changement sans avoir été désavoué par les électeurs ni au sein de son parti. Aux partis, je dis que j'ai deux objectifs: remettre sur pied et en marche l'économie italienne et favoriser une réconciliation entre les forces politiques et l'opinion publique.

Vous aviez 80% de consensus lors de votre investiture et vous êtes encore largement au-dessus de 50%. N'êtes-vous pas surpris?

Tout à fait. Je n'ai vraiment rien fait pour le mériter. Bien au contraire, ma cote de popularité devrait être voisine de zéro, étant donné la rigueur des sacrifices que je demande aux Italiens.

   ,......................................................

   DIE WELT  4.1.2012

http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article13796072/Italiens-Parlamentarier-sind-Topverdiener-in-Europa.html

Verschuldeter Krisenstaat

Drucken Bewerten 04.01.2012

Italiens Parlamentarier sind Topverdiener in Europa

Die italienische Regierung fährt einen strikten Sparkurs. Trotzdem zeigt ein Expertenbericht: Italiens Abgeordnete verdienen mehr als 16.000 Euro im Monat.

Italien ist hoch verschuldet, seine Abgeordneten aber sind mit mehr als 16.000 Euro an monatlichen Einkünften Spitzenverdiener im europäischen Vergleich. Das hat eine Expertenkommission in einem in Rom veröffentlichten Bericht bestätigt.

Bei 11.283 Euro liegt die monatliche Grundvergütung für jeden der 630 Abgeordneten. Dazu kommen 3503 Euro an Tagegeldern und Diäten sowie 1332 Euro an Zuschüssen zu den Transportkosten. Nicht eingerechnet sind dabei die 3690 Euro, die der Abgeordnete erhält, um sein Büro und Mitarbeiter zu bezahlen.

Spanische Volksvertreter am Ende der Rangliste

Im Vergleich mit sechs anderen europäischen Ländern müssen die spanischen Volksvertreter dem Bericht zufolge mit dem wenigsten Geld auskommen, wie die italienische Nachrichtenagentur Ansa berichtete: 2813 Euro Grundgehalt, dazu noch 1823 Euro an Diäten.

In Italien kommt den Steuerzahler außerdem noch teuer zu stehen, dass eine Reihe von Ausschüssen, Institutionen und Behörden bezahlt werden müssen, die es so in den anderen europäischen Ländern nicht gibt.

Die im vergangenen Sommer noch von dem damaligen Regierungschef Silvio Berlusconi eingesetzte sechsköpfige Professoren-Kommission stellte Zahlen aus Deutschland, Frankreich, Spanien, Österreich, den Niederlanden und Belgien gegenüber.

Einkünfte mit Deutschland vergleichbar

Danach sind die 16.000 Euro des italienischen Abgeordneten – rund 700 mehr noch für einen Senator –vergleichbar mit 12.600 Euro für einen Bundestagsabgeordneten in Deutschland und 13.500 Euro für einen Volksvertreter in Frankreich. Für die Mitarbeiter stünden den Deutschen und Franzosen allerdings weit mehr Gelder zur Verfügung, hielten die Statistikexperten fest.

Angesichts des strikten Sparkurses der Regierung von Mario Monti ist in Italien auch die Diskussion über die Einkünfte der Volksvertreter neu entbrannt. Monti hat einschneidende Maßnahmen verlangt, Abgeordnetenhaus und Senat bereiten Kürzungen vor. Das unter massivem Druck der Finanzmärkte stehende Land strebt mit einer Reihe von Sparpaketen bis 2013 einen ausgeglichenen Staatsetat an.

Bestbezahlter Regierungschef der Welt akzeptiert Gehaltskürzung

Der bestbezahlte Regierungschef der Welt, Singapurs Ministerpräsident Lee Hsien Loong, verzichtet derweil auf mehr als ein Drittel seines Gehaltes, bleibt jedoch an der Spitze der Rangliste. Lee beugt sich damit dem öffentlichen Druck und wird künftig umgerechnet 1,3 Millionen Euro im Jahr verdienen.

Zur Überprüfung der Gehälter von Spitzenpolitikern war im vergangenen Jahr eine Kommission eingesetzt worden, die nun ihre Vorschläge für Kürzungen vorlegte. Lee hatte bereits im Vorfeld erklärt, den Ergebnissen zustimmen zu wollen.

Derzeit beträgt Lees Jahressalär rund 1,8 Millionen Euro. Der wichtige Finanzplatz Singapur zahlt seinen öffentlichen Bediensteten hohe Gehälter, um Spitzenkräfte anzuziehen und Korruption vorzubeugen. Jedoch wächst in Singapur die Einkommenskluft. In dem Stadtstaat steigen die Kosten für Wohnungen und öffentlichen Nahverkehr.

Die Kommission schlug auch für Minister eine Lohnkürzung von 37 Prozent vor – sie sollen künftig mindestens 660.000 Euro im Jahr verdienen. Das ist immer noch deutlich mehr als US-Präsident Barack Obama – sein Jahresgehalt beträgt umgerechnet gut 300.000 Euro.

Reuters/dpa/jm/mcz

------------------------------------------

THE GUARDIAN  4.1.2011

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/04/trenitalia-racist-commercial-pulled

Italian rail company lambasted for 'racist' web commercial

Trenitalia replaces video which promoted its new four-tier system by showing a black family in lowest-class carriage

John Hooper in Rome

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 January 2012 16.25 GMT

Article history

Trenitalia is in trouble for a web commercial deemed to be racist.

The idea was never going to be an easy one to sell. Italy's state-owned railway corporation, Trenitalia, decided to replace the traditional first and second classes on its high-speed trains with four categories.

And since the occupants of fourth-class will not be allowed to use the on-board cafeteria, or even set foot in carriages reserved for better-off passengers, it was already facing accusations of introducing a form of segregation. By Wednesday, however, the company was preparing to defend itself against claims of outright racism.

Its problems arose after the release of a web commercial designed to get travellers used to the new reality. The top tier, executive class, was illustrated by businesspeople at work in a special conference room. The next best, business class, was depicted temptingly empty. Premium had a couple taking drinks from a trolley pushed by a uniformed hostess. And standard, the most basic class, was illustrated with a picture of a black family.

Attention was first drawn to Trenitalia's video by a blogger, Alessandro Gilioli, on the website of the weekly L'Espresso, and it soon triggered a torrent of complaints. "Grotesque" and "This is called racial discrimination" were among the more polite comments on Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites.

The video was hastily withdrawn on Tuesday evening and replaced with a new version in which the occupants of standard class are depicted as, first, a smiling, chattering white couple and then a family – also white – playing a game together on an internet-connected tablet. The businesspeople in executive class now include two non-white women.

The company had not made any statement on the affair by Wednesday afternoon. An official said one was being prepared.

.------------------------------------------

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL  30.12.2011

 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203391104577124480046463576.html?mod=WSJEUROPE_hpp_editorsPicks_2

 By MARKUS WALKER in Berlin, CHARLES FORELLE in Brussels and STACY MEICHTRY in Rome

 Deepening Crisis Over Euro Pits Leader Against Leader

 BERLIN—On a chilly October evening in her austere chancellery, Angela Merkel placed a confidential call to Rome to help save the euro....

.------------------------------------------

THE WASHINGTON POST 27.12.2011

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/markets/asian-stock-markets-decline-on-concern-about-weak-christmas-sales-europes-debt-impact/2011/12/26/gIQAob5gJP_story.html

 European, US markets up slightly but Italy lags as country’s key borrowing rate hits 7 percent

By Associated Press, Published: December 27

 ......................................................

THE GUARDIAN  26.12.2011

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/26/rome-revolt-billboard-jungle

Romans revolt over billboard jungle

Advertising firms planting thousands of billboards across Rome, just as city loses some of its most majestic trees

Tom Kington in Rome

guardian.co.uk, Monday 26 December 2011 18.46 GMT

Article history

For centuries Rome has been treasured as one of the world's most beautiful cities, a place of spectacular ruins, soaring baroque churches and cobbled piazzas shaded by century-old palms, plane trees and Mediterranean pines.

But now Romans are rising up in revolt as advertising firms plant thousands of billboards across the city, just as chainsaws are wielded to fell some of the city's most majestic trees.

"City hall has stood by and watched as Rome is destroyed," said Athos De Luca, an opposition council member.

The billboards are often erected along kerbs, towering over head height and obscuring bus stops and street signs. Recently a hoarding was put up so close to passing traffic on Via Tuscolana that a moped driver and his passenger were killed when they collided with it.

There has been a proliferation of protest websites and a demonstration outside Rome's town hall, and more than 10,000 Romans have backed a new law to limit the number of billboards.

Rome's mayor, Gianni Alemanno, a former neo-fascist elected on Silvio Berlusconi's ticket in 2008, was forced to take notice when the head of Telecom Italia, one of Italy's biggest advertisers, said he was so disgusted by the "jungle" of billboards that he was pulling all his street ads from the city.

Opponents said the problems started in 2009 when Alemanno announced a temporary amnesty for 32,000 billboards in the city – a mix of legal and illegal ads – and ordered all ad firms to pay rent on them while he drew up a clearer set of rules. Almost three years later those rules are still in the works, while the city has raked in about €8m (£6.9m) in rents a year.

De Luca said some of the hundreds of firms who put their adverts on the mayor's list had cheated. "Companies listed ads they hadn't yet erected, or put up five ads where only one was listed, turning a legal grey area into a free for all. Now they are putting up ads anywhere they please and we have up to 60,000 ads in town."

A city hall spokeswoman said there were only 4,000 more ads erected now than listed under the amnesty, and said 3,700 illegal billboards had been removed this year.

But one activist disputed that claim, and said residents had taken to mounting night patrols, filling holes dug ready for illegal billboard poles with cement. "It's madness out there," said the activist, who declined to give his name for fear of reprisals.

Meanwhile, Romans are keeping an eye on Alemanno's plans to uproot lines of 100-year-old plane trees that grace the city's wide avenues, to make way for underground car parks.

The mayor backed down over proposals for the Flaminio district after locals climbed the trees to stage protests, but activists say a scheme he has hatched next to the first-century BC Ara Pacis altar on the banks of the Tiber – this time for an underpass – could kill off up to 100 planes, which stand up to 20 metres high.

Vanna Manucci, of the heritage group Italia Nostra, said: "The planners of this mad tunnel say they can dug within 2.5 metres of the trees without killing them, blatantly ignoring the city's own gardeners who say the safe distance is double that."

Separately, city authorities have stepped up a cull of the planes because of damage and disease, felling 200 each year and leaving hundreds of metre-high stumps that make Roman streets resemble mouths full of broken teeth.

Augusto Burini, the city of Rome's tree expert, said years of careless asphalting and laying fibre optic cables had damaged roots, leaving trees unstable, but disease was the main culprit.

The worst-hit trees are Rome's palms, planted outside some of the city's most beautiful Liberty-style villas, which have fallen prey to the red palm weevil, an insect that digs into the trunk with deadly results. Shorn of their fronds, more than 1,000 dead palms now await felling around the city.

"Chemical treatments can be tried but I fear it could a useless battle to save this city's palms," said Burini.

,......................................................

THE GUARDIAN  26.12.2011

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/26/why-the-city-of-london-european

Why the City of London is European

David Cameron must persuade the French and other EU members that London's financial centre is their asset too

Jo Johnson guardian.co.uk,

Monday 26 December 2011 19.00 GMT

Article history

Next month's Franco-British collôque will provide much-needed group therapy for a relationship in crisis. The easy part will be where UK delegates reiterate their commitment to an open and competitive Europe, highlighting the vital national interest in the single market, destination for half of all British exports. This gathering of politicians, business leaders, civil servants and opinion formers will be able to agree that London's position as a top destination for inward investment owes much to EU membership, and that Britain would be taking a big risk if it signalled it was on a glide path out of the EU.

The much more difficult part will be to persuade the French, if not to love the City, at least to recognise how much it has changed since 2008. The scale of British-based banks (with balance sheets five times UK GDP) and the risk they posed to UK taxpayers left the British government no choice but to take early unilateral action. By adopting measures such as the bank levy and now the Vickers report – which demands higher levels of bank capital and ring-fencing of retail banks from their investment banks – Britain is already implementing more radical reforms than those demanded by European regulators.

Restoring confidence in UK regulation will be essential if Britain is to have an influential voice in the debate over how and where to regulate, (whether nationally; at the EU regional level; or globally, as with the Basel rules) and if it is to limit the damage a welter of ill-adapted EU regulations could soon do to the UK financial services industry. London feels frustrated by the way Paris continues to deride the City as a virulent breeding ground of systemic crises and, perhaps deliberately, ignores the fact that successive British governments have put an end to light-touch regulation.

Generating buy-in for the City's pre-eminent place in European finance, however, involves more than just providing assurances over the quality of UK regulation. A critical part of the defence of this national interest must involve a concerted diplomatic effort to persuade France and other member states to recognise that the City – a global centre of excellence with a critical mass of people and technology implanted in the EU – is a precious European asset. Many of the 400,000 French nationals residing in London work in finance. Like the German car industry or the French aerospace sector, it is a rare European success story that should be celebrated and cherished.

Populist pressure on David Cameron to drape the City in a union flag is counterproductive. What happens in London affects the world. Financial stability in the UK is a global public good in which the EU has an interest. Since much financial regulation is now made in Brussels and exported to the UK, the City can only remain the EU's global financial centre through the enlightened self-interest of other member states. Britain has in the past won regulatory arguments on their merits. Evidence of politically motivated regulation being rammed through by countries voting as a bloc has been scant.

But the European commission's daft proposal for a financial transactions tax was an important warning against complacency in this respect, and the coming months will be critical, not least because of the forthcoming review of the market in financial instruments directive. Britain must therefore remind France that history is rich with examples of apparently trivial regulatory tweaks generating inter-continental shifts in financial markets business; and that while handicapping London might be satisfying, it will not necessarily see business move to Paris or Frankfurt.

Competition between EU financial centres is fading, just as the rivalries between London and regional UK stock markets once waned. The future is a struggle between New York, a European hub in London, and centres in Asia. This is not to say the City should be Europe's only financial centre – that would be as absurd as saying the French should be the only winemakers. However, while Paris, Frankfurt and Milan will remain central for their domestic economies, only London has critical mass as an EU-located global financial centre. UK commercial diplomacy must ensure that Paris and other EU governments see the folly of undermining a great European success story.

......................................................

LE MONDE  23.12.2011

http://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2011/12/23/2012-l-annee-des-grands-rendez-vous-electoraux_1622410_3210.html

2012 : l'année des grands rendez-vous électoraux

Cahier Géo & Politique, numéro spécial "Tour du monde des élections en 2012", daté du samedi 24, dimanche 25 et lundi 26 décembre | LE MONDE GEO ET POLITIQUE | 23.12.11 | 18h52   •  Mis à jour le 23.12.11 | 19h40

Mis à jour le 23'année 2011 fut celle de l'indignation à travers le monde et de la colère de peuples arabes qui ont renversé certains de leurs tyrans. 2012 est celle de grands rendez-vous électoraux. Rares sont en effet les années où les citoyens de tant de pays sont appelés aux urnes, avec parmi eux, outre la France, les grandes puissances que sont les Etats-Unis et la Russie. Dans ces trois cas, les sortants briguent un nouveau mandat et aucun n'est assuré, à l'heure actuelle, de l'emporter.

Pays le plus peuplé du monde et financier universel, la Chine a quant à elle planifié depuis 2007 une transition fluide. Un nouveau tandem dont on espère, à tort ou à raison, qu'il impulsera une certaine ouverture politique au régime, doit prendre les rênes du Parti communiste : Xi Jinping devrait succéder au président Hu Jintao, et Li Keqiang, prendre le relais du premier ministre Wen Jiabao. En principe. Car nul ne sait vers quel destin une société chinoise de plus en plus revendicatrice mènera ses dirigeants.

Des échéances électorales importantes sont en outre attendues en Corée du Sud tandis que le Nord remet son sort entreles mains d'un jeune héritier peu connu. Idem à Taïwan, au Mexique, au Venezuela, en Iran, en Algérie, en Palestine et, côté africain, au Sénégal, au Mali et au Kenya, entre autres. Tandis que l'Union européenne continuera d'affronter sa crise existentielle. Autant d'enjeux susceptibles de changer la donne géopolitique mondiale ou régionale qui sont passés en revue dans ce numéro spécial et soumis au regard d'une personnalité asiatique – "désoccidentalisation" de la planète oblige –, George Yeo.

La seconde partie de ce numéro spécial est consacrée aux révoltes qui se sont propagées dans les pays arabes en 2011 et qui n'ont pas dit leur dernier mot, en Syrie notamment. Un séisme qu'analyse Bernard Haykel, spécialiste du monde musulman et des formes de l'islam politique.

La mappemonde des puissances grandes, moyennes et petites promet de continuer de se réorganiser en 2012, et souvent par les urnes.

16 pages à  lire dans le cahier Géo & Politique du Monde en vente jusqu'au lundi 26 décembre.

…………………………………………..

LE MONDE  23.12.2011

http://clesnes.blog.lemonde.fr/2011/12/23/obama-sur-la-route-de-la-reelection/

23 décembre 2011

Obama sur la route de la réelection

    Barack Obama a réussi l'impossible: faire plier les républicains et partir à Hawaï à temps pour Noël.
    Hier, les membres de la chambre des représentants qui bloquaient le renouvellement des allègements de cotisations sociales (alors que la majorité des senateurs républicains avaient voté le texte) ont capitulé.
    Les élus ne sont pas rentrés de vacances mais ils ont adopté le texte par consensus (présence de tous non obligatoire). Dès ce matin, la loi a été promulguée par le président. A deux heures, Barack Obama était dans l'avion. Direction Honolulu.

    Barack Obama termine l'année en beauté. Il a avantageusement exploité le retrait d'Irak. Sa cote de popularité est à son plus haut niveau depuis la mort de Ben Laden (49 %).  Et, contrairement à l'été, il a remporté le bras-de-fer avec les républicains sur les impôts et le budget (pour les cotisations sociales, on remettra ça dans deux mois).
    Sur les "bumperstickers" des voitures, on commence à voir des autocollants "Obama-Biden 2012". Et un autre qui témoigne du retournement des mots, opérés par les "spin docteurs" du président: "Obama cares". Une façon de contre-carrer les attaques contre la réforme de la santé de 2009, appelée "Obamacare" par les républicains.
    Obama "cares". Autrement dit: Obama a du coeur. Il "se soucie" de ses compatriotes, de la classe moyenne etc...

 La route des 270  
    Barack Obama a peut-être plus de chances d'être réélu qu'on ne le croit. Comme chacun le sait, l'élection présidentielle américaine se déroule Etat par Etat. 
    Barack Obama a besoin de 270 voix au collège électoral (sur 538 grands électeurs). Les stratèges démocrates espèrent remodeler la carte, comme en 2008, lorsqu'il avait remporté tous les Etats gagnés par John Kerry en 2004 plus 9.

    Selon eux, la route des 270 passe moins par les Etats de vieille industrie, comme l’Ohio, que par ceux de l’Ouest, où ils espèrent profiter de la mobilisation latino.
   Contrairement à ses prédécesseurs, Barack Obama pourrait réussir à remporter l’élection sans gagner  la Floride et l’Ohio, pour autant qu’il compense en arrivant en tête dans le Colorado, le Nouveau Mexique et le Nevada, et dans le « nouveau Sud » (Virginie, Caroline du Nord). A eux trois, la Virginie, le Colorado et la Caroline du nord représentent 37 grands électeurs, soit deux fois plus que l’Ohio (18).

Les minorités 
   Comme le rappelle une étude du Center for American Progress (CAP), un think tank démocrate, les groupes qui avaient majoritairement voté pour Obama en 2008 –les Noirs, les Latinos- sont des groupes en expansion démographique. Ceux qui ont voté contre (les Blancs non diplômés) sont plutôt en perte d'influence dans la population.
   En 2008, les minorités représentaient 18 % de l’électorat. Le CAP estime que leur part sera de 28 % en 2012. La représentation de la classe ouvrière blanche –une catégorie qui, depuis Ronald Reagan, vote majoritairement républicain- ne cesse de s’éroder : elle est passée de 50 % à 39 % en dix ans. 

   Malgré les désillusions récurrentes des uns et des autres, Obama devrait pouvoir compter sur ses soutiens de 2008 : les Noirs, les Latinos, les écolos. La bataille portera sur les blancs diplomés d'études supérieures, les "moms" des suburbs... Catégories dans lesquelles Mitt Romney est compétitif, avec son approche "businessman".
 
La prescription du dr Luntz
    Devant une convention de gouverneurs républicains réunie fin novembre en Floride, Frank Luntz, le « spin docteur » républicain, a donné son diagnostic sur les perspectives électorales 2012.
    « Le meilleur espoir d’être réélu pour Obama repose sur la démographie », a-t-il lui aussi constaté.
    Autre point positif: il reste apprécié en tant que personne. « Les gens aiment Obama et ils pensent qu’il essaie. Ils continuent à penser que ses intentions sont bonnes. Ce n’est pas tout à fait aussi important que les résultats mais c’est sacrément important ». 

   Les républicains doivent, selon Frank Luntz, employer des mots « très précis », s’ils veulent empêcher la victoire du président sortant. 
    - « Si la bagarre se situe sur le terrain de la classe moyenne, les démocrates vont gagner, compte tenu de ce qui s’est passé avec Wall Street. Si la bagarre se situe sur le terrain du contribuable qui travaille dur, les républicains ont l’avantage », explique-t-il.
     Ou:
     - « Si vous parlez d’augmenter mes impôts pour les riches, une majorité d’Américains sont pour, y compris la moitié des républicains. Si vous parlez du gouvernement qui prend l’argent de la poche des gens qui travaillent dur, le public dit non ». 

    Frank Luntz conseille à Obama d’éviter les attaques négatives, qui risquent de lui faire perdre des points parmi ceux qui l’apprécient sur le plan personnel.
    Aux républicains, il conseille de cesser de poser la question de la réélection en termes de « quatre ans de plus » (Four more years: slogan des démocrates).
   - « Quatre ans c’est très court. Il ne faut pas demander si Obama mérite quatre ans de plus.  La question qu'il faut poser c'est si son bilan vaut huit ans. Ca, ça l’affaiblit ».

…………………………………………..

THE NEW YORK TIMES  22.12.2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/23/world/europe/italy-passes-40-billion-austerity-plan.html?_r=1&ref=europe

Senators in Italy Pass Plan for Budget

By RACHEL DONADIO

Published: December 22, 2011

 ROME — Italy’s Senate voted overwhelmingly to give final approval on Thursday to a $40 billion austerity and growth package aimed at eliminating Italy’s budget deficit by 2013 and stimulating the economy as part of a broader plan to stabilize the euro.

Although it has a parliamentary majority, the month-old technocratic government of Prime Minister Mario Monti called a confidence vote on the measures to avoid having to address modifications proposed by the Northern League, once a pillar of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s center-right coalition and now the loudest opposition party.

The measures — which have grown increasingly unpopular as the reality sets in for Italians — reinstate a property tax on first homes, among other tax increases; raise the retirement age to 66 for men and 62 for women by 2012; and raise the ceiling for cash transactions to $1,300, among other measures to crack down on tax evasion.

The government has said that it tried to spread the pain among all segments of society and not just hit what many call “the usual suspects” — taxpaying salaried employees who often take the brunt of tax increases because tax evasion among nonsalaried workers is so high.

Mr. Monti — a former European commissioner and university president who must work with a Parliament whose largest bloc, the center-right, is eager for early elections to solidify its political standing — has said that the bywords of his government are “equity,” “rigor” and “growth.”

To stimulate growth — which remained flat at 0.3 percent in Italy over the past decade — the measures also provide tax incentives for businesses that hire women and people under 35 on permanent contracts. Business groups have called for even more sweeteners to prevent the economy from contracting further.

In a speech just before the vote, Mr. Monti underlined the need to orient European economic policies more toward growth, rather than just concentrating on fiscal discipline. Calling the measures a “proof of collective discipline,” Mr. Monti said that the package enabled Italy to hold its head high as it faces the undeniably serious European crisis.

Although Mr. Monti still enjoys broad political and popular support, the measures have become increasingly unpopular in a growing climate of economic uncertainty, in a country that is already in recession, and where salaries have remained flat in recent years.

“I know that we all have to cooperate and that the measures were needed, but my feeling is that they always turn to the same people, like pensioners or those with low salaries,” said Maurizio Capecci, an unemployed 57-year-old who sells lottery tickets during the Christmas season in downtown Rome. “I think the government should have introduced a wealth tax. Why can’t those who have more give more, but for real?”

A strike called by labor unions shut down national transportation last week, and more strikes are anticipated in the coming months to protest changes in pension rules and labor contracts. Mr. Monti’s government has said that it is planning to tackle labor reform — long a third rail in Italian politics — in the new year.

Gaia Pianigiani contributed reporting.

 ------------------------

 THE ECONOMIST  21.12.2011

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/12/ecbs-3-year-funding-operation

The ECB's 3-year funding operation

The ECB, eternal and infinite

Dec 21st 2011, 18:43 by G.I. | WASHINGTON

·                                 THE European Central Bank has come under criticism for its failure to act as lender of last resort to embattled sovereigns. Yet when it comes to banks, the traditional recipients of central bank support, the ECB is lender of last resort on steroids. Today, it lent €489 billion to 523 banks at 1%, at its first three-year refinancing operation. It was its largest refinancing ever.

Banks used some of that to pay off shorter term loans from the ECB. Even so, net lending of €235 billion brought the ECB’s total loans to banks to almost €1 trillion.  Mario Draghi, the ECB president has repeatedly insisted the ECB’s purchases of government bonds were neither “eternal nor infinite”,  but that clearly doesn’t apply to its lending to banks. As banks’ private sector funding dries up, the ECB has supplied not just all the short-term funds they need, but all the dollar funds they need (via the revamped swap lines from the Federal Reserve) and now long-term funds as well.

This operation is crucial to understanding the ECB's strategy during the crisis. I recently returned from Europe with, I think, a better feel for the different points of view there. Both the ECB and its critics agree on the ultimate solution to the crisis: some form of joint liability for the region's debts coupled with a political compact that enforces fiscal responsibility on member states. Where they differ is the responsibility of the ECB in making that happen. The ECB's critics note it will take an agonizingly long time for the politicians to deliver. In the meantime the ECB must be lender of last resort and so keep sovereign insolvency from becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. In refusing to do so, it is allowing a vicious cycle of austerity, bank runs and deleveraging to choke the economy and destroy public support for the euro; the ECB may end up the central bank of a non-existent currency.

The ECB's critics, however, may underestimate the potency of its tools and its willingness to use them. While it doesn’t dispute that the crisis and austerity are taking a toll, it also believes it can soften the economic fallout if it is willing to be a lender of last resort to its banks without limit. If the day comes when retail depositors follow wholesale lenders and pull all their cash out of every bank in Greece, Spain and Italy, the ECB can replace it, euro for euro. If the ECB ends up the sole source of funding for half the region’s banks, so be it.

When the Financial Times asked Mr Draghi if the ECB was really undertaking quantitative easing by a different name, Mr Draghi coyly answered:

Each jurisdiction has not only its own rules, but also its own vocabulary. We call them non-standard measures. They are certainly unprecedented. But the reliance on the banking channel falls squarely in our mandate.

Indeed, total ECB lending is now almost as large, in absolute terms, as the Fed’s first, and largest, round of QE.  Some analysts say banks may simply use the money to put on a carry trade by buying back their own debt or higher-yielding corporate or government debt. But does it matter? If they do, the ECB has taken long-term risk assets out of the market, raising private demand for the stuff that remains. That’s precisely what the Fed is trying to achieve through QE.

This raises two questions: economically, does it work? And politically, does it make sense? On the first, it might stand a better chance than you think. In America credit is priced off the risk-free rate, so if a Treasury yielded 6%, mortgages would cost 8%. But the essence of Europe’s debt crisis is that sovereigns are being reclassified from risk-free to credit. It is conceivable, then, that sovereign yields may decouple from the interest rates charged to households and companies.

Between the end of May and the end of October, the 10-year Italian government bond yield rose 140 basis points, to 6.19%. In the same period, the average rate on new household mortgage rates rose only 45 basis points, to 3.54% (based on Bank of Italy data which is only available through October) and the average new business loan rate rose about 75 basis points, to 3.74% (part of this was due to a rise in the ECB’s policy rate which has since reversed). Ignazio Visco, the bank’s new governor, said on December 9th, that higher bond yields were “being passed through to the cost of finance to the private sector and the spending plans of households and firms, thereby diminishing the domestic component of aggregate demand”. Still, between May and October, total loans to households and businesses rose, albeit by only 1% each. Yes, Italian GDP did contract 0.2% in Q3, and while tightening credit may have played a part, austerity may be the bigger culprit: public consumption declined 0.6%. 

November and December data may be worse, and it is probably too late for Italy and the euro region as a whole to escape recession. But if the ECB is successful at alleviating banks’ funding concerns, the supply of private credit may ease in the new year, and the deep recession and euro collapse so many feared a few weeks ago may be staved off. That would give politicians more time to either to hammer out a sustainable fiscal solution, or, unfortunately, to muddle through.

That then raises the next question: even if the ECB’s strategy makes sense economically, does it make sense politically? In its willingness to lend to banks without limit (to be sure, against collateral), but not to sovereigns, the banks’ ultimate guarantors, the ECB has rejected the more effective solution in favour of the more legal one. It is a bit like someone who won’t lend to a deadbeat father but will lend to his teenaged son. Ultimately, if the father can't pay his bills, neither can the son. 

Here again, the ECB may have been underestimated. While it believes politicians have certainly made matters worse, first in their initial insistence (since recanted) on private-sector haircuts and regulatory pressure on banks to deleverage, the ECB still believes the ultimate solution is political: the commitment by sovereign governments to fiscal balance. One of the more interesting things I heard in Europe was the assessment by a French observer that the problem today is France, not Germany: it continues to hold out for monetary union while surrendering as little sovereignty as possible, a position incompatible with a successful fiscal compact. If the ECB bent to France's wishes and became a more aggressive buyer of sovereign debt, it would simply let French (and other) politicians escape the tough decisions necessary for fiscal balance to work. It would bring near-term relief but no lasting solution.

I’m a bit more sympathetic to the ECB’s strategy than I used to be, but still not convinced it will work. Even with the threat of economic collapse at their doorsteps, European leaders still seem incapable of unified, decisive action. As our leader this week argues, the new fiscal compact makes no provision for Eurobonds or any other form of joint funding of member state debts and dwells too much on austerity and not enough on growth. The longer Europe muddles through, the more banks’ demands on the ECB will grow. Even if the ECB can, legally, become the sole source of funding for peripheral euro-zone banks, is that sustainable politically? At some point won’t the leaders realise that lacking all private-sector confidence, their banks can no longer finance a growing economy? At that point, they will conclude the euro is not sustainable and prepare to exit, and the ECB’s limits will have been reached.

------------------------

LE MONDE  19.12.2011

http://www.lemonde.fr/crise-financiere/article/2011/12/19/zone-euro-la-bce-refuse-d-enfreindre-le-traite-europeen-en-pretant-aux-pays-en-difficulte_1620608_1581613.html

Zone euro : la BCE refuse d'enfreindre le traité européen en prêtant aux pays en difficulté

LEMONDE.FR avec AFP | 19.12.11 | 18h44   •  Mis à jour le 19.12.11 | 19h53

Le traité européen interdit le "financement monétaire", soit le financement par la Banque centrale européenne (BCE) des Etats de la zone euro en créant de la monnaie, a déclaré lundi 19 décembre son président, Mario Draghi, devant la Commission des affaires économiques et monétaires du Parlement européen à Bruxelles. "Nous voulons agir dans les limites de ce traité", a-t-il répété à plusieurs reprises soulignant que si la BCE "prenait une mesure qui enfreignait le traité, cela affecterait la crédibilité de notre institution."

Depuis plusieurs mois, la pression se fait forte sur l'institution monétaire de Francfort pour augmenter ses achats et se transformer en prêteur de dernier ressort des pays de la zone euro mis en difficulté par les marchés. Mais Mario Draghi a souligné une nouvelle fois que son programme de rachat d'obligations publiques sur le marché secondaire n'est ni "éternel ni infini". "La BCE se soucie beaucoup de la stabilité financière mais doit agir de manière à éviter de porter atteinte à sa crédibilité", a-t-il insisté.

"ÉVITER UNE PÉNURIE DU CRÉDIT"

Pour M. Draghi, la BCE joue en revanche son rôle en prêtant aux banques autant qu'elles en ont besoin et à taux fixe, afin d'éviter qu'elles soient à court de liquidités et que cela n'affecte leur politique de prêts à l'économie réelle. "Nous essayons de faire notre maximum pour éviter une pénurie du crédit, qui affecterait le crédit accordé aux entreprises et aux ménages", a-t-il dit soulignant que les banques "représentent 80 % des prêteurs dans la zone euro ; donc ce canal est crucial pour le processus de crédit".

Par ailleurs, M. Draghi a affirmé n'avoir "aucun doute sur la force de l'euro, sa permanence, son irréversibilité", alors qu'il était interrogé sur un entretien qu'il a accordé au quotidien économique britannique Financial Times de lundi dans lequel il a évoqué les conséquences d'un éclatement de la zone euro. "Beaucoup de gens hors de la zone euro perdent beaucoup de temps en spéculations. Ils se demandent ce qui se passerait si ceci ou si cela et élaborent des scénarios catastrophes", a-t-il dit, estimant que dans ce contexte "une analyse claire des conséquences d'un tel scénario était nécessaire"

.------------------------------------------------

LE MONDE   18.12.2011

http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2011/12/18/le-precieux-heritage-de-vaclav-havel_1620267_3214.html

Le précieux héritage de Vaclav Havel

LEMONDE.FR | 18.12.11 | 17h01   •  Mis à jour le 19.12.11 | 07h39

Jusqu'au dernier moment, Vaclav Havel sera resté, dans l'âme, un dissident. Ces deniers jours, amaigri et affaibli par la maladie, il a trouvé la force de se lever pour rencontrer le dalaï lama, de passage à Prague. Il a encore signé une pétition demandant à l'opposition russe de s'unir contre les manipulations du régime de Vladimir Poutine, après les élections mouvementées du 4 décembre.

Vaclav Havel, qui s'est éteint dimanche 18 décembre à 75 ans, ne se trompait pas d'ennemi. Avec courage et obstination, il n'a jamais cessé de combattre le totalitarisme, de gauche ou de droite, n'a jamais marchandé son soutien à tous ceux qui s'engageaient contre la dictature, l'autoritarisme, ou l'obscurantisme, même loin, très loin de chez lui.

Homme de lettres et de théâtre devenu président, celui qui a conduit son pays vers la démocratie à travers une "révolution de velours" était devenu la figure la plus forte de la génération de dissidents qui a fait tomber le communisme en Europe centrale en 1989. Sa disparition, vingt ans tout juste après l'effondrement de l'Union soviétique, au terme d'une année qui a vu tant de soulèvements populaires dans d'autres parties du monde, et au moment où l'Europe se débat dans une crise existentielle, rappelle à quel point l'audace et la vision de quelques individus peuvent, parfois, bouger des montagnes. Et souligne cruellement à quel point l'absence de ces aventuriers de la démocratie, visionnaires humanistes, ouverts et éclairés, nous pénalise aujourd'hui.

ACTIVISME ET SÉJOURS EN PRISON

La mainmise communiste sur la Tchécoslovaquie puis l'intervention soviétique en 1968, pour écraser le printemps de Prague, avaient révolté Vaclav Havel. Cette révolte, d'abord canalisée dans ses pièces de théâtre, avait mûri jusqu'à 1977, lorsqu'il créa, avec une poignée d'autres dissidents, la Charte 77.

Dans les années qui suivirent, de rencontres clandestines en échanges parfois favorisés par des amis occidentaux, le lien se fit avec d'autres combattants de la liberté du bloc de l'est, les Michnik et Kuron de Solidarnosc en Pologne, les Sakharov d'URSS, les amis hongrois plus fortunés car un peu moins durement réprimés. Internet et Facebook n'existaient pas, la police politique exerçait une surveillance de chaque instant et les contacts étaient risqués - ils payèrent tous leur activisme de séjours en prison.

Havel, dans les années 1980, ne se déplaçait pas sans sa brosse à dents parce que, racontait-il de sa voix rauque, il ne savait jamais s'il dormirait chez lui ou en prison.

Mais c'est ce corps de résistants, solidement ancrés dans l'idée démocratique, qui a permis à l'Europe de l'est, une fois libérée, d'opérer une transition ordonnée et pacifique vers l'économie de marché et la démocratie. Lorsque les régimes communistes et pro-soviétiques se sont effondrés, la relève était prête, les objectifs établis. Dignement.

LES HÉRITIERS DE LA GÉNÉRATION HAVEL SE FONT ATTENDRE

Aux dizaines de milliers de Tchécoslovaques venus l'acclamer dans le froid glacial de décembre 1989, place Wenceslas à Prague, Vaclav Havel criait "Nous ne sommes pas comme eux !" : sa stratégie à lui, c'était "le pouvoir des sans pouvoirs", la résistance non violente et le refus des règlements de compte. Bien des protagonistes du printemps arabe d'aujourd'hui auraient rêvé de leaders pareils.

Esprit libre, vif et subtil, Vaclav Havel était aussi un grand européen. Pas une crise européenne, du drame yougoslave aux douleurs de croissance de l'Union européenne, ne l'a laissé indifférent : il a été de tous les combats, moraux et politiques. Après avoir joué un rôle essentiel dans la réunification de l'Europe divisée par la guerre froide, il s'est battu pour faire intégrer la République tchèque dans la famille européenne, au moment où celle-ci se serait volontiers contentée de lui offrir un strapontin.

Ses successeurs ne lui en ont guère été reconnaissants : les dirigeants tchèques actuels ne brillent pas par l'ardeur de leur défense de l'idée européenne. Un peu partout en Europe, les héritiers de la génération Havel se font attendre. Ses valeurs, sa vision et son ouverture d'esprit sont pourtant plus nécessaires que jamais.

Sylvie Kauffmann

 .---------------------------------

THE WASHINGTON POST  16.12.2011

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/mario-draghi-the-man-with-all-of-europes-cards/2011/12/14/gIQARKgvwO_story.html 

 Mario Draghi, the man with all of Europe’s cards

By Neil Irwin, Published: December 16

Mario Draghi is playing a high-stakes game of poker, and leaders from Europe’s biggest economies are trying to decide whether to call his bluff — or whether he’s bluffing at all.

Draghi, who became president of the European Central Bank less then two months ago, has placed a bet, declaring that the mighty ECB will not print money to arrest the debt crisis facing the continent. In a speech Tuesday, he warned that there will be no “external savior” for deeply indebted governments, urging them instead to put their financial affairs in order.

The leaders of Germany, France, Italy and Spain are at the table, each trying to decide how to respond. So are gigantic banks and other global investors. U.S. and British leaders are watching from the side, afraid of what might happen if things go awry.

The stakes on the table: the $16 trillion European economy.

No one knows for sure whether Draghi will hold to his tough line or fold. How open, in other words, could Draghi ultimately be to use the ECB’s power to keep the debt crisis from spiraling out of control if it means undermining the central bank’s political independence and risking inflation? What would it take for him to unleash the ECB and order massive purchases of bonds issued by Italy, Spain and other struggling governments to ensure they can continue to borrow money needed to avoid default?

Close to his vest

Since he became ECB chief, Draghi has been a master of ambiguity, sending conflicting signals — deliberately, many watchers of the ECB believe — about what he and his colleagues are willing to do to prevent Europe’s implosion.

Draghi, 64, headed Italy’s central bank before ascending to the ECB presidency on Nov. 1 as the crisis escalated — particularly in his home country. Italy’s borrowing costs were soaring as investors lost confidence in Rome’s ability to honor its obligations. A flood of data showed that the continent was headed toward recession, which would further aggravate the debt crisis.

Draghi, a dapper, MIT-trained economist with long experience in high-level economic diplomacy, has been willing to use many of the ECB’s tools to address the crisis. He cut the ECB’s main interest rate at his first two policy meetings, easing monetary policy to try to boost ailing European economies, over objections in at least one instance from some of his colleagues.

And he has offered the ECB’s backing to the continent’s banks, offering them unlimited loans in euros for the unprecedented length of three years at a time. He has also joined with top central bankers at the Federal Reserve and elsewhere in restarting a program to make dollars available to European banks that need them.

But those policies are treating the effects of the crisis — a slowing European economy and difficulty for banks seeking funds — and not addressing the more fundamental problems. Central to the crisis is deepening fear among ­global investors that Italy, Spain and other European governments will be unable to pay off their debts, ultimately leading to a break-up of the 17-nation euro zone.

…………………………………………..

 THE WASHINGTON POST  16.12.2011

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/european-central-bank-president-mario-draghi/2011/12/15/gIQANbqzwO_story.html

 European Central Bank President Mario Draghi

Published: December 16

Position: President, European Central Bank (since Nov. 1)

Nationality: Italian

Previous Positions: Governor, Bank of Italy (2006 through Oct. 31), and chairman of the Financial Stability Board, a global group of central bankers and regulators. Vice-chairman of Goldman Sachs International (2002-2005). Director General of Italian Treasury (1991-2001).

Age: 64

Education: PhD in economics, MIT, 1976; degree in economics from Sapienza University, Rome.

On the ECB potentially supporting European governments: “What makes you think that the ECB becoming the lender of last resort for governments is what is needed to keep the euro area together? No, I do not think that this is really within the remit of the ECB. The remit of the ECB is maintaining price stability over the medium term.” (News conference, Nov. 3)

On a euro-zone break-up: “I do not think it is useful to speculate about break-ups or such things. Because, in spite of everything, that seems quite far-fetched at this point in time.” (News conference, Dec. 8)

.------------------------------------------

 LE FIGARO   16.12.2011

 http://www.lefigaro.fr/marches/2011/12/16/04003-20111216ARTFIG00569-l-italie-adopte-un-nouveau-plan-de-rigueur-de-20milliards.php

  L'Italie adopte un nouveau plan de rigueur de 20 milliards

Mots clés : Italie, Équilibre budgétaire, Mesures d'austérité, Mario Monti, Plan de rigueur

Par Richard Heuzé Publié le 16/12/2011 à 21:11

  Le président du Conseil, Mario Monti, a fait voter aux députés un plan allongeant d'un an le départ à la retraite.Sur fond de récession, la Chambre des députés italiens a adopté, vendredi, une cure d'austérité de 20 milliards d'euros pour 2012 composée pour l'essentiel de recettes fiscales plus lourdes, un sacrifice devenu nécessaire pour mettre l'Italie à l'abri de la crise de la dette. Par 495 voix pour sur 587, les députés ont accordé leur confiance au président du Conseil Mario Monti qui venait de leur dire qu'il ne pouvait y avoir d'alternative. Tous les grands partis, du PDL de Silvio Berlusconi aux centristes de l'UDC, et jusqu'à la gauche, lui ont apporté leur soutien, sans cacher leur inquiétude. Pour sa part, le président de la République Giorgio Napolitano a exhorté les Italiens à consentir des sacrifices, «y compris ceux qui possèdent le moins».

Le texte de loi contenant ces mesures devait être adopté en séance de nuit. Le Sénat les votera à son tour avant Noël. L'ossature du plan repose sur une réforme des retraites, essentiellement basée sur l'allongement d'un an de la période d'activité (Jusqu'à 66 ans pour les hommes et 62 ans pour les femmes du secteur privé). L'indexation des salaires sur une inflation de 3,3 % est gelée pour deux ans au-dessus de 1.400 euros par mois, le seuil antérieur de 1 000 euros ayant été jugé trop bas.

Un second volet

Les autres mesures consistent en un rétablissement des impôts sur la demeure principale, abolis en 2008 par Silvio Berlusconi ; une augmentation de deux points de la TVA, à 21 %, à partir de septembre 2012 ; une hausse des droits d'accises sur le tabac et les carburants ; l'adoption d'une panoplie d'impôts sur les biens de consommation et une nouvelle ponction sur les capitaux rapatriés en 2008. Enfin, la traque de l'évasion fiscale sera renforcée avec interdiction de régler en liquide toute dépense supérieure à mille euros.

Quant aux autres mesures indispensables pour relancer l'économie, débureaucratiser, libéraliser, simplifier, accroître la concurrence, elles feront l'objet d'un second volet. Le premier train d'urgence aura un effet fortement dépressif sur l'économie. Le patronat s'attend à un recul de 1,6 % du PIB d'ici à juin 2012, avec une pression fiscale à 45,5 %, un chômage à 9 % et 800.000 pertes d'emplois. Un chiffre plus alarmant que ne prévoit l'OCDE, qui table sur une récession de 0,5 % pour l'Italie. Le patronat estime nécessaire une correction budgétaire de 5,6 % du PIB, plus qu'on n'a jamais fait au plan international.

 .---------------------------------

THE NEW YORK TIMES  16.12.2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/world/europe/monti-wins-confidence-vote.html?_r=1&ref=europe

Monti Wins Confidence Vote in Italy’s Lower House

By RACHEL DONADIO and GAIA PIANIGIANI

Published: December 16, 2011

ROME — Prime Minister Mario Monti of Italy won a confidence vote in the Lower House on Friday, speeding up the parliamentary passage of the 30-billion-euro budget bill aimed at restoring market confidence in the Italian economy and restarting its sluggish growth.

Despite disagreeing on some measures, the main political parties backed the package of tax increases and spending cuts, which passed with a large majority of 495 votes to 88. The measures will now go to the Senate, which is set to vote them before Christmas.

Mr. Monti came into office last month amid an intractable debt crisis with a mandate to spur growth while balancing the budget by 2013. But the package voted on Friday consists primarily of tax increases, not the structural changes to the economy that many experts say are necessary to restart healthy growth.

At a conference in Rome just before the vote in the Lower House, Mr. Monti said Europe’s response to the debt crisis “should be wrapped in a long-term sustainable approach, not just to feed short-term hunger for rigor in some countries.”

“To help European construction evolve in a way that unites, not divides, we cannot afford that the crisis in the euro zone brings us ... the risk of conflicts between the virtuous North and an allegedly vicious South,” he said.

In addition to austerity measures, heavily indebted countries like Italy and Greece are expected to carry out structural reforms that experts say may eventually make their economies competitive with those in northern Europe, particularly Germany’s. That lack of competitiveness has produced a chronic balance of payments deficit in the southern countries that economists say lies at the heart of the euro zone’s troubles.

It was hoped that Italian lawmakers would rally around Mr. Monti’s government of technocrats and make the tough decisions they have avoided in the past. But if his experience with this week’s measures is any guide, his government is bound to hit strong headwinds from vested interests that grip every corner of Italy’s complex, neofeudal economy.

After days of political wrangling in Parliament, the Monti government bowed to pressure from the right — most notably from the party of the former prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi — and dropped some elements of the $40 billion package of spending cuts and revenue increases, including a wealth tax and the speedy liberalization of closed professions like taxi drivers and pharmacists, a plan that drew protests from their powerful guilds. It also scaled back a newly reinstated property tax on primary residences.

After protests from the left and labor unions, most recently with a nation-wide transport system strike that blocked the country on Thursday and Friday, some counting more pensioners than workers among their members, Mr. Monti reinstated inflation increases on low-level pensions that he said would make the measures more equitable.

Mr. Monti has said he wants to make Italy more equitable — especially for young people and women, whom he has called a “wasted resource” — and to help the economy grow. But even as he pledged on Thursday to address labor reform and other structural changes in the coming weeks, he has run up against a wall of vested interests.

“In Italian society, there is no division between left and right; there’s a division between those who are inside or outside some organized groups,” said Sergio Fabbrini, the director of the School of Government at Luiss Guido Carli University in Rome. “All the main political parties from left to right represent the insiders. The left represents the pensioners, the trade unions. The right represent various insiders: the lawyers’ organizations, notaries.”

The only way for young people and women to be represented “is to have a technical government,” he added, “but of course a technical government will have to pass through the approval of the Parliament. And here again the insiders are well organized.”

For the most part, the new austerity package is based on tax increases. It would reinstate a property tax on first homes, which Mr. Berlusconi had eliminated as an election promise in 2008. It would also impose a 1.5 percent tax on revenues brought into Italy under an earlier tax amnesty, and add taxes on cigarettes and gas, which is close to 1.70 euros per liter, or more than $8 a gallon.

The governor of the Bank of Italy, Ignazio Visco, said last week that the measures would increase Italy’s tax burden to 45 percent, a level that businesses say is unsustainable.

On Thursday, the day the minister for economic development, Corrado Passera, said the Italian economy was already in recession, Confindustria, the industrialists’ organization, said it expected the Italian economy to contract 1.6 percent in 2012, rather than grow .2 percent as it had previously expected.

The organization’s president, Emma Marcegaglia, on Thursday criticized groups like the taxi drivers’ and pharmacists’ lobbies “and the political groups that bow down to them,” which blocked Mr. Monti’s proposal to allow cities to give out more taxi licenses and for some prescription medication to be sold outside of pharmacies.

Mr. Monti’s measures do include some efforts to lift growth, including tax incentives for those who hire women and workers younger than 35 on regular full-time contracts.

Many economists say that Italy’s growth is hampered by labor laws that protect older workers with lifetime tenure, leaving younger workers living on temporary contracts with low salaries and little job security.

“I would like Monti to be a bit more courageous on this front, about the labor market,” said Sergio Romano, a columnist for Corriere della Sera and a former ambassador. “But I can also understand that the times are what they are, and with the rapidity of the measures, they don’t want to get involved in a war of attrition with the unions.” And, Mr. Romano added, “he has a majority in Parliament who want early elections.”

Indeed, on Thursday, Mr. Berlusconi, whose People of Liberty party grudgingly voted confidence in Mr. Monti’s government, grabbed headlines for the first time in weeks, saying ominously that he was not sure how long Mr. Monti would last. He also said he did not like Mr. Monti’s approach to liberalization..

Mr. Fabbrini said Mr. Monti’s strength is that “there are no alternatives.”

 .------------------------------------------------------

LE MONDE   15.12.2011

http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2011/12/15/le-nombre-de-detenus-atteint-un-nouveau-record-en-france_1619366_3224.html

Le nombre de détenus atteint un nouveau record en France

LEMONDE.FR avec AFP | 15.12.11 | 15h37   •  Mis à jour le 15.12.11 | 16h58

Jamais il n'y a eu autant de personnes emprisonnées en France. Selon les statistiques mensuelles de l'administration pénitentiaire (AP), le nombre de détenus dans les prisons françaises a atteint, le 1^er décembre, un nouveau record historique, avec 65 262 personnes incarcérées. Le parc pénitentiaire, comptant 57 255 places, est donc nettement surpeuplé avec un taux d'occupation de 113,9 % (113 % au 1^er novembre).

Les statistiques de décembre représentent une hausse de 6,2 % par rapport à décembre 2010 (61 473), et de 0,9 % par rapport au 1^er novembre 2011 (64 711), précise l'AP dans un communiqué.

 RECORD BATTU MALGRÉ DOUZE NOUVELLES PRISONS

Dans le détail, le nombre de prévenus (en attente de jugement) s'élève à 16 587, soit 25,4 % des personnes incarcérées. Les mineurs détenus sont 750, en hausse de 8,7 % par rapport au mois précédent (690). Ils représentent 1,1 % des personnes incarcérées. Enfin, 10 698 personnes bénéficient d'aménagements de peine (semi-liberté, bracelet électronique, etc.), dispositif ayant progressé de 25,4 % en un an et de 43,7 % en deux ans.

Déjà, en juin dernier, le record d'incarcérations avait été battu avec 64 971 personnes enfermées. Cette surpopulation carcérale n'a donc pas été empêchée par les constructions de prisons, initiées par le gouvernement. Pas moins de douze établissements pénitentiaires ont ouvert leurs portes entre 2008 et 2011 (Mont-de-Marsan, Saint-Denis de la Réunion, Roanne, Lyon-Corbas, Nancy-Maxéville, Poitiers-Vivonne, Béziers, Le Mans, Bourg-en-Bresse, Rennes-Vezin, Le Havre et Lille-Annœullin).

 LE GOUVERNEMENT SOUHAITE PLUS DE PRISONS

Cette hausse de 12,3 % de la capacité opérationnelle du parc pénitentiaire n'a donc pas su combler les manques pourtant établis de longue date. Pour tenter de résorber la situation, le gouvernement prévoit la construction de plus de 20 000 places de prison supplémentaires pour fin 2017, dans l'optique d'un parc carcéral de 80 000 places.

Au grand dam de l'Observatoire international des prisons (OIP), une association de défense des droits des détenus, qui a appelé les parlementaires à voter contre la loi de programmation prévoyant cette nouvelle augmentation, "économiquement coûteuse" et, selon lui, "contre-productive en termes de prévention de la récidive". Dans son premier rapport depuis six ans, publié la semaine dernière, l'OIP estimait en outre que les conditions de détention n'avaient pas connu d'avancée majeure ces dernières années.

.------------------------------------------------------

08 décembre 2011

MURS – L’alarmante situation des prisons françaises vaut aussi pour l’outre-mer

La situation dans les prisons françaises continue d'alarmer. Un rapport publié, mercredi, par l'Observatoire international des prisons (OIP) estime que les politiques pénale et pénitentiaire menées de 2005 à 2011 au nom de la prévention de la récidive se sont soldées par des mesures "inefficaces, voire contre-productives".

La surpopulation carcérale explose et le nombre de cas de morts suspectes ou de suicides dans les prisons françaises s'élève à 105 en 2011. L'association pour la communication sur les prisons et l'incarcération en Europe Ban public a recensé ces 105 cas par lieux de privations et par motif du décès. Sur les dix premiers mois de l'année, 97 détenus se sont donné la mort, une hausse de près de 8 %, déplore pour sa part l'OIP.

Mais loin des regards et de l'attention portée aux prisons métropolitaines, il y a les prisons ultra-marines. Le contrôleur général des prisons, Jean-Marie Delarue, a publié un rapport paru au Journal officiel le 6 décembre relatif au centre pénitentiaire de Nouméa, en Nouvelle-Calédonie. Il porte un regard alarmant sur la situation dans cette terre lointaine. "Les personnes détenues sont entassées dans des cellules insalubres où elles subissent une suroccupation frôlant les 200 % dans le centre de détention et le quartier de semi-liberté et atteignant 300 % dans le quartier de la maison d'arrêt. Au moment de la visite, 438 personnes y étaient écrouées et hébergées pour un nombre théorique de 218 places," dit le rapport.

Dans un article sur la "France carcérale", le site Owni.fr recense à l'aide d'une infographie édifiante le nombre de lieux de privation de liberté (maisons d'arrêt, centres de détention, centres pénitentiaires, etc.) sur le territoire et leur capacité d'accueil, précisant ne pas oublier l'outre-mer... Il faut effectivement se déplacer laborieusement sur la carte pour mettre la souris sur les petits pictogrammes figurants les prison installées à plusieurs milliers de kilomètres des côtes de la métropole.

Ces "territoires oubliés" sont pourtant symptomatique de l'état des prisons françaises. "Sur les quatorze établissements que compte l’outre-mer, la densité est supérieure à 200 % dans trois établissements, et la moitié est en état de surpeuplement," souligne Owni. Le site a demandé à Alexis Saurin, président de la Fédération des associations réflexion-action, prison et justice (Farapej), la raison de cet état de fait. "Les prisons d’outre-mer sont moins visitées par les contrôleurs. On peut se demander si la situation dans ces établissements est plus acceptable parce qu’ils sont loin de métropole… La situation n’est pas nouvelle. Le centre pénitentiaire Nuutania, à Faa (Polynésie française), était déjà largement surpeuplé en 2003. Si la situation perdure, c’est qu’elle est d’une certaine manière tolérée…"

François Bès, coordinateur outre-mer pour l'OIP, interrogé par le NouvelObs.com, précise. "Les deux pires prisons françaises en termes de conditions de détention sont le centre pénitentiaire Camp Est de Nouméa et celui appelé Faa'a-Nuutania en Polynésie." Le second enregistre un taux d'occupation de 400 %. "L'an dernier, lors d'une inspection des services vétérinaires, des parasites ont été trouvés dans la nourriture et il n'est pas rare que les détenus y trouvent des vers," ajoute M. Bès.

Le ministre de la justice a annoncé qu'un prochain programme de travaux doit être "élaboré pour assurer le maintien en condition opérationnelle du centre pénitentiaire de Nouméa pour les années à venir". Des décisions devraient être prises en fin d'année. François Bès, lui, reste sceptique. "La situation de Camp Est s'est fortement dégradée pendant des années, tout le monde le savait mais personne ne disait rien."

.------------------------------------------

THE GUARDIAN   15.12.2011

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/15/britain-build-europe-outside-euro

 Britain can build a Europe outside the euro

Phillip Blond

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 15 December 2011 13.59 GMT

Article history

Cameron should position himself as the defender of a European escape route from a project that has The reverberations from David Cameron's decision last Friday to wield Britain's EU veto continue to multiply. We know the real reasons for the British veto are domestic. Cameron believed any agreement would split his coalition government, initiate a UK referendum, and lead to the full departure of the UK from the EU. So Cameron opted in by staying out. Despite much international negativity and domestic anxiety, this has created a new and wholly unrecognised strategic opportunity for both the UK and the EU. Apart from selling more goods to the Bric nations, Britain lacks any discernible foreign policy and in particular it has no vision and nothing to say on Europe. This is fundamentally dangerous for Britain and the world – it undermines the UK's role in international affairs, and imperils real and recent European achievements: the liberation of Libya and the bilateral defence relationship with France to name but two.

So what is this opportunity? Currently Britain remains the sole defender of a European Union that has been all but captured by the demands of the eurozone. Once it had decided on the veto, the UK was legally and morally correct to resist plans by the eurozone countries to use the institutions of the 27 member EU to secure the 17 members who use the euro. The UK is now rightly defending the European commission and the European court of justice from being subverted by eurozone demands to use these institutions to police any putative euro settlement.

Merkel and Sarkozy were trying to tie the institutions of the EU to the interests of the eurozone in order to give Germany some further legislative hold, via the courts and the commission, over the countries whose debts it is planning to underwrite. By any objective rationale this needs to be resisted, not for the sake of the UK but for the sake of Europe.

It is perfectly rational to argue that the euro is not in the interests of Europe and that it is vital to maintain an EU apart from the euro because the project to stabilise the currency and its multiple sovereign debt problems may well fail. There needs to be a pan-European structure which countries can still adhere to if the common currency collapses.

Out of perceived domestic necessity Cameron has created a new European invention that will have an increasing attraction for the other European nations that fear political exclusion or economic destruction by the French/German axis. Indeed, the prime minster has already spoken of approaches from other nations outside the eurozone such as Sweden and the Czech Republic, anxious about what they have signed up to, as well as countries such as Ireland equally concerned about the consequences of the new arrangements. As such Cameron can and should position himself as the defender of a European escape route from a project that has every chance of collapsing in dangerous acrimony.

Maintaining the EU and eurozone as separate is a double insurance against the future. Firstly because the proposed remedy at Brussels to the euro crisis is little more than the old and failed growth and stability pact but without the growth – as yet it is hardly likely to work as it fails to address the current crisis and sets up a dysfunctional system for dealing with a settlement yet to be achieved. Any genuine euro solution is equally difficult to imagine as it relies on the ECB finally accepting its role as the lender of last resort while forgoing any euro-wide mutualisation of debt. No wonder the Germans are anxious for a judicial and policing role, without this they simply have no security for what they are planning to do. The current proposal agreed in Lisbon is a misconceived attempt to regulate a settlement that does not exist, moreover the timing is out of kilter with the bond markets and this "fiscal agreement" may well be priced out of existence before any resolution by the eurozone is achieved in March of next year.

Moreover, even if the new intergovernmental treaty works it also risks medium-term failure. It will mean damaging austerity for years, administrated by a judicial centre that will permit no variation or innovation, and will drive a wedge between Europe's citizens and undemocratic technocratic rule. The social disorder that we have seen in Greece will likely pass to Italy, Spain and Portugal – reviving both European nationalism and hatred of German hegemony – exactly what the EU was designed to avoid.

Britain needs to stress that it sees the euro as the great danger to Europe and, rather than bizarrely pushing for its centralisation under a German economic aegis – a provision that will ensure permanent proletarianisation for the southern nations – it needs to seek and create a new EU growth pact for those who wish for an alternative outside the euro but in Europe. For the common currency area that might mean separate euro zones or parallel currencies with greater or smaller spreads in relation to the euro. Rather than letting domestic policy-needs trump any international dimension, if Cameron is clever he could utilise one to augment the other and create a euro opt-out for nations for whom saving the euro would mean their own democratic erasure and impoverishment . If Cameron can make the most of this policy opportunity he will have created a vital exit strategy for European nations from a policy and a position that has every chance of failing. And, in time, Europe may thank Britain once again for saving them from themselves.

 .------------------------------------

THE ECONOMIST  15.12.2011

http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2011/12/jacques-chirac

Jacques Chirac

Liberty, equality, but not impunity

Dec 15th 2011, 12:10 by S.P. | PARIS

THE conviction of Jacques Chirac has stunned even the political opponents of the former president of France. This morning a Paris court found Mr Chirac guilty of the misuse of public funds during his time as mayor of Paris in the 1990s, and handed him a two-year suspended prison sentence. He is the first former president under the Fifth Republic to have been tried, let alone convicted, in a criminal court.

The case concerns what is known as the "fake jobs" affair. While Mr Chirac was mayor of Paris, a powerful job that he used as a springboard to win the French presidency in 1995, various employees paid by the town hall were in reality working for his Gaullist party. Alain Juppé, currently France's foreign minister and then Mr Chirac's right-hand man, was convicted in connection with the same affair back in 2004. Seven of the nine co-defendants in the case were also found guilty this week.

For those who had given up hope of ever seeing Mr Chirac held to account, this is an extraordinary decision. For years investigating judges have crawled all over various cases linked to the former president, from inflated grocery bills to public-housing contracts. But almost all of them were shelved. During his time as president, from 1995-2007, Mr Chirac was protected from prosecution. After he left office, several cases expired under the  statute of limitations.

Even the current case did not look as if it would get anywhere. There have been endless procedural delays. Last year Mr Chirac and the ruling UMP party, successor to the party he founded and ran, paid back the Paris town hall €2.2m ($2.9m) in connection with the fake-jobs case; in return the town hall, now held by the Socialists, pulled out as civil plaintiff. Even the public prosecutor had pleaded for Mr Chirac's acquittal.

For his part Mr Chirac, despite reimbursing the town hall, insisted that he had done nothing criminally, or morally, wrong. This autumn his lawyers managed to excuse the 79-year-old former president from attending court on the grounds of mental frailty. They had pleaded to the presiding judge to consider how the decision would weigh on Mr Chirac's place in history.

The paradox is that Mr Chirac has finally been found guilty at a time when public sympathy for him is at a remarkable high. He was not a popular figure when he left office. But in retirement he has become a sort of grandfather figure, looked upon fondly, and he regularly tops popularity polls. He suffers from memory loss, and even some of his detractors have had qualms about the criminal trial. So the French are likely to treat his conviction with mixed feelings, even some regret.

But for the political class, Mr Chirac's conviction sends a powerful message. It may even presage the end of a culture of impunity in French public office. Besides the convictions of Messrs Chirac and Juppé, there is an ongoing investigation into sexual abuse by a former minister, another into illegal party-financing linked to Lilian Bettencourt, billionaire heiress to the L'Oréal cosmetics empire, and yet another into illegal eavesdropping on journalists. For the first time, there is a sense that French politicians are being held to the same standards as ordinary mortals.

.----------------------------------------

The New York Times  15.12.2011

 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/world/middleeast/panetta-in-baghdad-for-iraq-military-handover-ceremony.html?_r=1&ref=world

 U.S. War in Iraq Declared Officially Over

An Unpopular Conflict Comes to an Uncertain End

By THOM SHANKER and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT 27 minutes ago

 BAGHDAD — The United States military officially declared an end to its mission in Iraq on Thursday even as violence continues to plague the country and the Muslim world remains distrustful of American power.

In a fortified concrete courtyard at the airport in Baghdad, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta thanked the more than one million American service members who have served in Iraq for “the remarkable progress” made over the past nine years but acknowledged the severe challenges that face the struggling democracy.

“Let me be clear: Iraq will be tested in the days ahead — by terrorism, and by those who would seek to divide, by economic and social issues, by the demands of democracy itself,” Mr. Panetta said. “Challenges remain, but the U.S. will be there to stand by the Iraqi people as they navigate those challenges to build a stronger and more prosperous nation.”

The muted ceremony stood in contrast to the start of the war in 2003 when an America both frightened and emboldened by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, sent columns of tanks north from Kuwait to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

As of last Friday, the war in Iraq had claimed 4,487 American lives, with another 32,226 Americans wounded in action, according to Pentagon statistics.

The tenor of the hour-long farewell ceremony, officially called "Casing the Colors,” was likely to sound an uncertain trumpet for a war that was started to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction it did not have. It now ends without the sizable, enduring American military presence for which many military officers had hoped.

Although Thursday's ceremony marked the end of the war, the military still has two bases in Iraq and roughly 4,000 troops, including several hundred who attended the ceremony. At the height of the war in 2007, there were 505 bases and more than 170,000 troops.

According to military officials, the remaining troops are still being attacked on a daily basis, mainly by indirect fire attacks on the bases and road side bomb explosions against convoys heading south through Iraq to bases in Kuwait.

Even after the last two bases are closed and the final American combat troops withdraw from Iraq by Dec. 31, under rules of an agreement with the government in Baghdad, a few hundred military personnel and Pentagon civilians will remain, working within the American Embassy as part of an Office of Security Cooperation to assist in arms sales and training.

But negotiations could resume next year on whether additional American military personnel can return to further assist their Iraqi counterparts.

Senior American military officers have made no secret that they see crucial gaps in Iraq's ability to defend its sovereign soil and even to secure its oil platforms offshore in the Persian Gulf. Air defenses are seen as a critical gap in Iraqi capabilities, but American military officers also see significant shortcomings in Iraq's ability to sustain a military, whether moving food and fuel or servicing the armored vehicles it is inheriting from Americans or the fighter jets it is buying, and has shortfalls in military engineers, artillery and intelligence, as well.

  "From a standpoint of being able to defend against an external threat, they have very limited to little capability, quite frankly," Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, the outgoing American commander in Iraq, said in an interview after the ceremony. "In order to defend against a determined enemy, they will need to do some work."

The tenuous security atmosphere in Iraq was underscored by helicopters that hovered over the ceremony, scanning the ground for rocket attacks. Although there is far less violence across Iraq than at the height of the sectarian conflict in 2006 and 2007, there are bombings on a nearly daily basis and Americans remain a target of Shiite militants.

Mr. Panetta acknowledged that “the cost was high — in blood and treasure of the United States, and also for the Iraqi people. But those lives have not been lost in vain — they gave birth to an independent, free and sovereign Iraq.”

The war was started by the Bush administration in March 2003 on arguments that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and had ties to Al Qaeda that might grow to an alliance threatening the United States with a mass-casualty terrorist attack.

As the absence of unconventional weapons proved a humiliation for the administration and the intelligence community, the war effort was reframed as being about bringing democracy to the Middle East.

And, indeed, there was euphoria among many Iraqis at an American-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein. But the support soon soured amid a growing sense of heavy-handed occupation fueled by the unleashing of bloody sectarian and religious rivalries. The American presence also proved a magnet for militant fighters and an Al Qaeda-affiliated group took root among the Sunni minority population in Iraq.

While the terrorist group has been rendered ineffective by a punishing series of Special Operations raids that have killed or captured several Qaeda leaders, intelligence specialists fear that it is in resurgence. The American military presence in Iraq, viewed as an occupation across the Muslim world, also hampered Washington's ability to cast a narrative from the United States in support of the Arab Spring uprisings this year.

Even handing bases over to the Iraqi government over recent months proved vexing for the military. In the spring, commanders halted large formal ceremonies with Iraqi officials for base closings because insurgents were using the events as opportunities to attack troops. “We were having ceremonies and announcing it publicly and having a little formal process but a couple of days before the base was to close we would start to receive significant indirect fire attacks on the location,” said Col. Barry Johnson, a spokesman for the military in Iraq. “We were suffering attacks so we stopped.”

Across the country, the closing of bases has been marked by a quiet closed-door meeting where American and Iraqi military officials signed documents that legally gave the Iraqis control of the bases, exchanged handshakes and turned over keys.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey of the Army, has served two command tours in Iraq since the invasion in 2003, and he noted during the ceremony that the next time he comes to Iraq he will have to be invited.

  "We will stand with you against terrorists and others that threaten to undo what we have accomplished together," General Dempsey said during the ceremony. "We will work with you to secure our common interests in a more peaceful and prosperous region."

.----------------------------

The New York Times  13.12.2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/world/europe/mario-monti-revises-italian-budget-measures.html?_r=1&ref=europe  

 Italian Leader Revises Plans for Austerity

By RACHEL DONADIO

Published: December 13, 2011

 After facing his first big political test with lawmakers who voted confidence in his month-old government but wanted measures more palatable to their constituents, Mr. Monti said he had dropped plans for a tax on the wealthy that had been vehemently opposed by the center-right party of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

Mr. Monti, who was named leader of a government of technocrats last month after a political stalemate and fierce market pressure helped force Mr. Berlusconi from office, told lawmakers that a wealth tax would drive capital from the country and would not produce a significant increase in revenue.

After protests from labor unions, the government said it would raise the threshold at which pensions do not receive cost-of-living increases. It also said it would lower the amount that pensions are reduced for those who retire before the designated retirement age.

“The new measures are more equitable,” Mr. Monti said.

The government said it would compensate for the lost revenue by raising the proposed tax on assets repatriated under an earlier tax amnesty and by raising a new tax on checking accounts with a monthly balance of more than $6,600.

The measures also include the reintroduction of a property tax on first homes, which had been abolished by the previous government, as well as tax breaks for companies that hire workers under 35 on a full-time basis.

The Lower House is expected to vote on the measures this week and the Senate next week.

Mr. Monti told lawmakers that Italy, like all European Union countries, had ceded sovereignty as part of a treaty agreed to last week in Brussels. But he said the nation had also lost sovereignty because it had “put itself in a position of weakness.”

.-----------------------------------------------

 EL PAIS  13.12.2011

http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2011/12/13/actualidad/1323808443_511976.html

 Les anglosaxons

 Reino Unido siempre ha tratado de impedir que se formara un poder unificador en Europa

Miguel Ángel Bastenier 13 DIC 2011 - 21:35 CET

Esto no es la Europa a dos velocidades, que ya existía, e incluso a varias más. La negativa de Reino Unido a la creación de algo parecido a un control de las políticas fiscales de los Veintisiete, no por previsible es menos trascendental. Es la división de la UE en una Europa más y una Europa menos; 26 miembros de la primera y uno solo de la segunda. Adivínese cuál.

Es virtualmente imposible determinar qué le conviene a una nación, primero porque cualquier nación es una suma heterogénea de voluntades solo unificables por defecto, es decir, por decisión de su Gobierno; y segundo porque sería una pedantería insufrible comunicarle al prójimo lo que le conviene. Por ello, la decisión británica de anteponer la independencia de la City a la construcción —o reparación— de Europa, es su realpolitik. Pero lo que sí cabe es preguntarse por qué Londres se ha hecho así.

El término euroescépticos designa formalmente a los británicos opuestos a una mayor integración de la UE, pero la cosa va mucho más lejos. El euroescepticismo es, en realidad, una fórmula deliberadamente asexuada para identificar a los enemigos de Europa, y aunque esa aversión sea nominalmente minoritaria, recorre todo el cuerpo de la nación. Y, como suele ocurrir en dilatados procesos de cambio, es también un fundamentalismo, en este caso light, que adopta la forma de un clamor por el retorno a unos orígenes que nadie sabe ya dónde paran.

Todo fundamentalismo nace de un temor, y en Reino Unido lo encarna la desaparición de un mundo posimperial. Cualquiera que haya visitado Reino Unido con alguna asiduidad en el último medio siglo habrá percibido la progresiva europeización del país, el paulatino desvanecimiento de un way of life que ya pertenece al mundo de la caricatura y el folclore. Y esa angustia de sentir la tierra que se mueve bajo los pies es lo que da fuerza a la visión mitológica de la nación imaginada. La preservación, cueste lo que cueste, del poder financiero británico al que se acredita hasta un 30% del PIB nacional, podrá estar justificada, aritmética al efecto, pero eso no niega el poso histórico sobre que se construye.

Como nación precavida, Britannia estima que siempre ha tenido a mano una alternativa a Europa: la llamada Relación Especial con Estados Unidos, aquella parábola que Winston Churchill acuñó en marzo de 1946 para encapsular la colosal ayuda que Washington prestó a Londres en la II Guerra, y que un brillante sucesor, el también tory Harold MacMillan, tradujo con regusto clasicista como la Grecia británica, sabia asesora de la nueva Roma norteamericana. Pero sin cuestionar de cuánto valió en su tiempo la metáfora, hoy no pasa de ser un modesto sucedáneo. Cuando Barack Obama declaraba que era “el primer presidente norteamericano del Pacífico” estaba oficiando los funerales del grand large, aquel Atlántico que un día fue inglés. Y, peor aún, un Reino Unido irrelevante en Europa interesa obviamente mucho menos a Washington que un socio a parte entera de la UE.

Ese euroescepticismo, como todos los fenómenos de alguna importancia en la historia, tiene varios siglos de antigüedad. La Reforma protestante en Inglaterra era, al menos a sus inicios en 1534, tanto o más una cuestión política que religiosa. Enrique VIII, además de arreglarse uno o diversos matrimonios, estaba proclamando la independencia insular con respecto a una idea simbólica e imperial de Roma. Ese sería, y es, el lugar de Reino Unido en el mundo: impedir con el dominio de los mares que se formara un poder unificador en Europa, primero contra los Habsburgo y en sucesión, Luis XIV, Napoleón y Hitler. El que fuesen de agradecer todas esas intervenciones no niega el porqué geoestratégico de las mismas: impedir la unidad del continente; es decir, de la UE.

Y, aunque una Europa sin Londres nunca estará completa, algo positivo cabría desentrañar de la nueva situación. Siempre es mejor trabajar con la realidad que hacerlo solo con nuestras preferencias. Desde el veto del general De Gaulle al ingreso británico en la Comunidad, y la demorada inclusión de Reino Unido en los años setenta, nadie ha ignorado en Bruselas que Londres jugaba con las cartas apretadas contra el pecho. Pero nadie quería tampoco cerrar la puerta a una europeización que el nuevo fundamentalismo de las Islas aborrece. La comedia de las equivocaciones podría estar, sin embargo, tocando a su fin. A ese gran problema de Europa le llamaba un militar francés “les anglosaxons”.

 .------------------------------------------------

 THE ECONOMIST 10.12.2011

http://www.economist.com/node/21541460

 Italy’s budget

Saving Italy

The new prime minister pleases markets but spooks the people

Dec 10th 2011 | ROME | from the print edition

SHOWING that he is not averse to a bit of PR spin, Italy’s new prime minister, Mario Monti, called it his “Save Italy” decree: a package of fiscal adjustments worth €30 billion ($40 billion) over three years. Susanna Camusso, leader of the CGIL, the biggest trade-union federation, retorted that it risked “saving the country and finishing off the population”.

On December 12th, in a rare show of unity, the CGIL will join two other labour alliances in a strike against the decree. But it will last only three hours, and essential services will be exempt. Italians may not like Mr Monti’s emergency budget, which came into force on December 6th and is expected to win parliamentary approval (which it needs to remain in force) by Christmas. Indeed, it has lopped nine points off his approval rating, according to a poll in Corriere della Sera, a daily newspaper, whose cartoonist depicted the mild-mannered professor as a bloodsucking vampire. Yet hardly anybody is prepared to block a measure which the prime minister said was all that stood between Italy and “the Greek risk: not being able to pay salaries and pensions”.

The initial details cheered the Milan bourse and sent yields on Italian bonds, which had reached worrying levels, plunging. The package will unquestionably put Italy in a stronger position to face the capital markets next year, when it has to refinance more than €300 billion of its €1.9 trillion debt. And it is earning Mr Monti friends among his European Union peers, who have been keen to show that Italy is once again a valued partner.

The budget includes more deficit-reduction measures to add to those previously imposed by Silvio Berlusconi’s government. But Mr Monti also began to do something his predecessor had lamentably failed at: promote growth in sluggish Italy. Fully €10 billion of the savings are to be reinvested with this aim. There is a tax break to encourage firms to hire women and younger workers, a full-scale liberalisation of shopping hours and €3.8 billion for moribund infrastructure projects. Not that results are expected soon. Mr Monti’s deputy finance minister, Vittorio Grilli (Mr Monti is his own finance minister), predicts a fall in GDP of up to 0.5% next year, with the outlook flat for 2013.

There were two main criticisms of the budget. Economists decried its reliance on tax increases—around €18 billion of the total, according to Mr Grilli. A property tax on first houses, abolished by Mr Berlusconi, was reintroduced, higher excise was slapped on petrol and the government tucked away a possible 2% rise in value-added tax next September. The immediate spending cuts were more timid, and mostly foisted on the regions. The big savings will come more slowly from a radical shake-up of the generous pensions system. Italy’s unique years-in-work system of calculating pensionable age is to be phased out, and the statutory retirement age will be pushed back.

The other main criticism of Mr Monti’s package was that too much was being expected of the poor. There were measures aimed at the rich: a levy on investments and taxes on private boats, aircraft and luxury cars. But the government also scrapped full inflation-proofing next year for all but the smallest pensions. The effect that could have on more vulnerable Italians was acknowledged by the welfare minister, Elsa Fornero, who was overcome by emotion as she announced the decision. Unwittingly, perhaps, that too was an effective piece of PR: it told Italians that at least the government shared their pain.

----------------------------------------

the new york times  2.12.2011

 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/world/europe/president-giorgio-napolitano-italys-quiet-power-broker.html?_r=1&hp

Saturday Profile

From Ceremonial Figure to Italy’s Quiet Power Broker

Pier Paolo Cito/Associated Press

"It is time to re-establish a climate of calmness and mutual respect." Giorgio Napolitano

By RACHEL DONADIO

Published: December 2, 2011

Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.

SOME have taken to calling him simply “Re Giorgio,” or King George, for his stately defense of Italian democratic institutions and the outsize albeit behind-the-scenes role he played in the rapid shift from the cinematic government of Silvio Berlusconi to the technocratic one of Mario Monti.

He is President Giorgio Napolitano, 86, a former high-ranking member of Italy’s Communist Party — Henry A. Kissinger is said to have called him his “favorite Communist” — who last month capped a distinguished career by orchestrating one of the most complex political transfers in Italian postwar history, and who remains a key guarantor of political stability in a rocky time.

His performance was all the more impressive in that the Italian presidency is a largely symbolic office, with no executive power. But Mr. Napolitano, who is known for his straight talk and down-to-earth style in a floridly baroque culture, pushed that role to its limit to become a quiet power broker.

He spent months laying the groundwork for the transition — consulting with Italian political leaders, European leaders, American officials and the Bank of Italy to shepherd the creation of a viable alternative government for the “post-Berlusconi” moment.

“Now is the time to show maximum responsibility. It is not the time to pay off old scores nor for sterile partisan recriminations,” Mr. Napolitano said in a statement when announcing Mr. Monti’s nomination. “It is time to re-establish a climate of calmness and mutual respect.”

“Napolitano not only dictated the timing of the solution but also the contents, that is the unusual thing,” said Andrea Simoncini, a constitutional law professor at the University of Florence. “He didn’t only say, ‘You have to do it soon’; he basically chose Monti and created the conditions so that people couldn’t not say yes to Monti.”

Today, Mr. Monti’s government is widely referred to as “a government of the president,” backed by Mr. Napolitano and the European Union as much as by the Italian Parliament, which gave Mr. Monti’s government a rousing vote of confidence last month but has yet to approve unpopular new austerity measures.

As often happens in Italy, momentum built slowly, but change happened swiftly. For months, Mr. Berlusconi had clung to power without solid support, making much-needed economic reforms impossible as world markets continued to hammer Italy. The trigger was pulled on Nov. 8, when Mr. Berlusconi lost his ruling majority on a vote the same day bond markets drove borrowing rates on Italian bonds to the same levels that have required other euro zone countries to seek bailouts.

That evening, a humbled Mr. Berlusconi went to meet Mr. Napolitano at the Quirinal presidential palace for consultations. Aides said the meeting was cordial, but its outcome was clear: The once-Teflon prime minister had agreed to step down.

Moving quickly, Mr. Napolitano plucked Mr. Monti from his post as president of Milan’s Bocconi University and anointed him as a senator for life, making him a full member of Parliament, not just an academic outsider. “That was an act of genius,” said Corrado Augias, a veteran Italian political commentator and writer. “He took a professor and redressed him as a politician.”

IT helped that Mr. Napolitano, whose seven-year term began in 2006, enjoys popular approval ratings of around 80 percent, compared with 20 percent in recent weeks for Mr. Berlusconi. “This was his life insurance, because if he hadn’t had it, Berlusconi would have eaten him for lunch,” Mr. Augias said.

In the topsy-turvy world of Mr. Berlusconi’s Italy, where the prime minister’s personal life came to overshadow the work of governance, Mr. Napolitano had emerged as the anti-Berlusconi. With his elegant yet feisty wife, Clio, by his side, a lawyer whom he married in 1959, Mr. Napolitano came to be seen as embodying a different Italy, one of civic virtue.

This month, the Italian edition of Wired magazine named Mr. Napolitano its man of the year, for displaying “a surprising speed in remaining connected to reality. In a word: Wired.”

Even after Mr. Berlusconi did step down, the idea of replacing his cabinet with a technocratic government was not at all a given. The former prime minister’s center-right coalition was dead set on early elections, and some in his former coalition criticize the Monti government as an anti-democratic coup.

But in a new order in which markets trumped traditional democratic processes, President Obama, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France all called Mr. Napolitano during the delicate transition to express their support for his leadership — calls widely seen as tacit support for a Monti government over early elections.

It was a striking indication of how far Mr. Napolitano, to say nothing of the rest of the world, has come in the last years of his career.

At one time, the idea of an American president thanking Mr. Napolitano — who was essentially the foreign minister of the Italian Communist Party — or even calling him was unthinkable.

In his earlier years, Mr. Napolitano did not stray much from the Communist Party line, once going so far as to say that the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 had contributed to peace in the world, according to a 2006 article in Corriere della Sera. But by 1969, he was part of a group of Italian Communists who broke with the Kremlin to criticize the crackdown of the Prague Spring uprising of 1968.

LIKE many Communists from his native Naples, Mr. Napolitano hailed from the more conservative wing of the party, whose members were known as the “miglioristi,” or the “improvers,” for their desire to make the world better through government rather than revolution.

The ambassador to Italy under President Jimmy Carter, Richard N. Gardner, wrote in his memoirs about his secret meetings with Mr. Napolitano, who was respected enough to become one of the first Italian Communist officials to visit the United States.

He made the trip in 1978, just weeks after the dramatic kidnapping of Prime Minister Aldo Moro by a leftist radical group, and delivered well-received lectures at leading universities. None other than the seven-time Christian Democratic prime minister Giulio Andreotti, the mastermind of postwar Italian politics, said that he had helped secure Mr. Napolitano a visa.

In the late 1980s, as the communist project was ending and the party reacted by closing ranks, Mr. Napolitano fell out of favor by calling for closer ties with the Socialists, whose social democratic views he largely shared. He left instead for Strasbourg, France, where he was a member of the European Parliament from 1989 to 1992.

After the collapse of Italy’s old political order in a bribery scandal, Mr. Napolitano returned to Italy in 1992 and became speaker of the Lower House, where he commanded broad support. In 1996 he was seen as enough above the fray to be named Italy’s first post-Communist interior minister, a politically sensitive position that involves overseeing the secret service.

Now, Italians are looking to Mr. Napolitano to guide the ship of state with quiet skill as Mr. Monti and his team of technocrats take on the treacherous challenge of modernizing Italy’s creaking economy.

“I appreciate his dynamism and courage, especially remarkable for a man of that age,” said Paolo Olsoufieff, a retired businessman, as he read a newspaper in a restaurant in downtown Rome. “He is the only man capable of holding at bay the circus of ferocious beasts that is the Italian Parliament.”

----------------------------------------

DER SPIEGEL  2.12.2011

 http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,801272,00.html

02.12.2011

Euro-Krise

Merkel verschärft Tempo im Rettungs-Marathon

Von Philipp Wittrock

 Die Kanzlerin erhöht den Druck auf die Euro-Partner. Gemeinsam mit Nicolas Sarkozy will Angela Merkel Europa zur Fiskalunion ausbauen und dafür die EU-Verträge ändern. Im Bundestag vergleicht sie die Krise mit einem Marathonlauf und macht klar: Wer sich ihrer Taktik nicht fügt, bleibt auf der Strecke.

Aus Datenschutzgründen wird Ihre IP-Adresse nur dann gespeichert, wenn Sie angemeldeter und eingeloggter Facebook-Nutzer sind. Wenn Sie mehr zum Thema Datenschutz wissen wollen, klicken Sie auf das i.

Berlin - Wir sind also ungefähr bei Kilometer 35. Sagt die Kanzlerin. Und von da an, das hat Angela Merkel gehört, wird es beim Marathon so richtig anstrengend. Aber sie hat auch gehört, dass die ganze Strecke zu schaffen ist, wenn man sie nur richtig angeht. "Nicht der, der am schnellsten beginnt, ist zwangsläufig der Erfolgreichste, sondern der, der weiß, was für die ganze Strecke zu beachten ist."

So ist das also mit der Euro-Krise. Sie ist ein Marathonlauf. Die Zielgerade ist noch nicht in Sicht, der schwerste Teil liegt womöglich sogar noch vor uns, aber immerhin, ein gutes Stück ist schon bewältigt. Und keine Sorge: Den Rest schaffen wir auch noch, die Kanzlerin hat sich die Kräfte gut eingeteilt. Sagt sie.

Die Abgeordneten auf den Oppositionsbänken werden zwar ziemlich unruhig, als Merkel im Bundestag ihre Läuferqualitäten preist. Kopfschütteln bei der SPD, Grünen-Fraktionschef Jürgen Trittin ätzt später, Merkels Marathon habe doch noch gar nicht begonnen. Merkel überlege trotz der dramatischen Lage gerade erst ,"ob sie irgendwann einmal die Turnschuhe aus dem Schrank holt". Gregor Gysi, der Fraktionschef der Linken, meint, er habe zwar viel Phantasie, aber sich Frau Merkel beim Marathonlauf vorzustellen, "das fällt mir sehr schwer". Da muss auch die Kanzlerin schmunzeln. Aber sie lässt sich nicht beirren.

Im Krisenmarathon will Merkel im entscheidenden Streckenabschnitt Tempo machen, gemeinsam mit Frankreichs Präsident Nicolas Sarkozy. Am Montag legt das Duo in Paris seine Pläne für die angestrebten Änderungen der Europäischen Verträge vor, um die Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion zu stärken. Die Pläne sollen wenige Tage später beim Gipfel der Staats- und Regierungschefs in Brüssel besprochen werden.

Merkels Fiskalunion

Wirklich konkret wird Merkel am Freitag im Bundestag nicht. Doch ihre Grundziele, um das Vertrauen der Finanzmärkte in die Euro-Zone wiederherzustellen, sind klar. Die Kanzlerin will Europa zu einer Fiskal- und Stabilitätsunion ausbauen. Dazu gehören:unumstößliche Stabilitätskriterien, eine "neue europäische Schuldenbremse". Merkel will "rechtsverbindliche Grenzwerte" ohne jeden "politischen Spielraum",strenge Kontrolle der Haushaltsdisziplin durch die EU-Kommission,automatische Sanktionen und Durchgriffsrechte für die Kommission auf die nationalen Haushalte im Falle von Verstößen gegen die Stabilitätskriterien, Klagerecht gegen Defizitsünder vor dem Europäischen Gerichtshof.

Einmal mehr erteilt Merkel im Bundestag den umstrittenen Euro-Bonds und einem stärkeren Engagement der Europäischen Zentralbank (EZB) eine Absage. Doch die Hintertür bleibt offen - für beide Instrumente.

So betont die Kanzlerin zwar einmal mehr die politische Unabhängigkeit der EZB sowie ihre Aufgabe, die Geldwertstabilität zu sichern. Doch das bedeutet nicht, dass sie den weiteren Ankauf von Staatsanleihen krisengeschüttelter Euro-Länder nicht akzeptieren würde, sollte die zugespitzte Lage dies kurzfristig erfordern. Es darf nur nicht so aussehen, als erfolge die Entscheidung zum Kauf der Krisen-Anleihen auf politischen Druck. Den allerdings übt die französische Seite hinter den Kulissen in Sachen EZB weiter aus. Das französische Blatt "Le Canard Enchainé" zitiert Sarkozy mit den Worten: "Das Tauschgeschäft ist eher einfach. Das Ende des EZB-Dogmas gegen absolute Einhaltung der Haushaltsdisziplin."

Auch in der Frage gemeinsamer europäischer Staatsanleihen könnten die Euro-Partner versuchen, Deutschland Zugeständnisse als Gegenleistung für Vertragsänderungen abzuringen. Die Kanzlerin hat vor den Abgeordneten der Unionsfraktion zwar beteuert, sich auf einen solchen Deal nicht einzulassen. Sie schloss aber auch nicht aus, dass Euro-Bonds mittel- oder langfristig doch kommen werden. "Für Euro-Bonds bräuchten wir hieb- und stichfeste Defizitverfahren", heißt es in CDU-Kreisen. "Wenn alle unsere Forderungen zur Haushaltsdisziplin und -kontrolle wirklich vertraglich implementiert sind, dann können wir darüber reden."

Hartes Ringen um Vertragsänderungen

Merkel hätte allerdings mit scharfem Widerstand in ihrer Koalition zu rechnen. Die FDP ist kategorisch gegen Euro-Bonds, und auch CSU-Chef Horst Seehofer stellt am Freitag noch einmal klar: "Eine Vergemeinschaftung von Schulden kommt nicht auf den Tisch." Ganz sicher ist sich der bayerische Ministerpräsident jedoch nicht. Im kleinen Kreis hat Seehofer bereits die Sorge geäußert, dass Merkel im Kampf gegen die Krise Kompromisse eingehen muss, die CSU-Positionen widersprechen. Für diesen Fall könnten die Christsozialen gezwungen sein, einen Sonderparteitag einzuberufen, heißt es aus München. So weit ist es noch nicht. Schon beim Gipfel in der kommenden Woche einzuknicken und Euro-Bonds ihren Segen zu geben, kann sich Merkel kaum erlauben.

Der Kampf um die Vertragsänderungen wird jedoch hart werden. Nicht nur das Prozedere ist umstritten. Gibt es einen großen Konvent? Oder doch ein Express-Verfahren, wie es der Bundesregierung vorschwebt? Ohnehin wachsen in Europa die Vorbehalte gegen eine zu starke deutsche Führungsrolle. Merkel versucht diese am Freitag zu zerstreuen: Die Vorwürfe einer deutschen Dominanz seien abwegig. Allerdings macht sie auch klar, dass sie nicht vorhat, auf alle endlos Rücksicht zu nehmen. Sollte der Widerstand gegen die Änderungen der EU-Verträge zu groß sein, würden eben neue Verträge innerhalb der Euro-Gruppe geschaffen, bei denen auch Nicht-Euro-Staaten wie etwa Polen mitmachen könnten. Eine Koalition der Willigen sozusagen.

Und so könnte es sein, dass bei Merkels Marathon noch einige auf der Strecke bleiben, während sich andere mit der Kanzlerin und dem französischen Präsidenten ins Ziel schleppen. Ob das die Spaltung Europas bedeuten würde? Merkel sagt, jeder sei eingeladen mitzumachen, eine Spaltung wolle sie natürlich vermeiden.

Aber wie war das noch mit der Legende vom ersten Marathonlauf? "Wir haben gesiegt", soll der griechische Bote einst in der Antike ausgerufen haben, nachdem er den langen Weg nach Athen gerannt war, um dort den Sieg in der Schlacht von Marathon zu verkünden. Dann soll er tot zusammen gebrochen sein.

 .----------------------------------------

THE NEW YORK TIMES 30.11.2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/business/central-banks-move-together-to-ease-debt-crisis.html?hp

Central Banks Take Joint Action to Ease Debt Crisis

By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM Published: November 30, 2011

WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve moved Wednesday with other major central banks to buttress the financial system by increasing the availability of dollars outside the United States, reflecting growing concern about the fallout of the European debt crisis.

The banks announced that they would slash by roughly half the cost of an existing program under which banks in foreign countries can borrow dollars from their own central banks, which in turn get those dollars from the Fed. The banks also said that loans will be available until February 2013, extending a previous endpoint of August 2012.

“The purpose of these actions is to ease strains in financial markets and thereby mitigate the effects of such strains on the supply of credit to households and businesses and so help foster economic activity,” the banks said in a statement.

On Wall Street, stocks raced ahead at the 9:30 a.m. start of trading in New York, an hour and a half after the announcement by the central banks. The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index, a measure of the broad market, rose 3.2 percent; European markets were up almost 4 percent in late trading.

The participants in addition to the Fed were the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, the Bank of Canada and the Swiss National Bank.

The move made clear that regulators increasingly are concerned about the strain that the European debt crisis is placing on financial companies.

European banks in particular are facing difficulty in borrowing through normal channels the money that they need to fund their obligations.

The cost for European banks to borrow in dollars in the open market has climbed to the highest level in three years, and the European Central Bank borrowed $552 million from the Fed last week to meet the rising demand for dollars from European banks.

That brought the value of the Fed’s outstanding currency loans to $2.4 billion, all to the E.C.B. except $100 million on loan to the Bank of Japan.

The Fed’s vice chair, Janet Yellen, underscored “the urgency of strengthened international policy cooperation” in a speech Tuesday in San Francisco in which she said that “the global economy is facing critical challenges.”

The terms of the revised agreement announced Wednesday reduces to 0.5 percentage points an existing premium of one percentage point. Since the underlying price of the loans — the dollar overnight index swaps rate — stands at less than 0.1 percentage points, the move cuts the cost nearly in half.

The most recent loan to the E.C.B., which carried an interest rate of 1.08 percent, now would cost 0.58 percent. The other central banks said they had also agreed to make similar loans of their own currencies as necessary, but they noted that the only extraordinary demand at present was for dollars.

The arrangements carry little risk for the Fed, which swaps the dollars for the currency of the borrowing country, together with a commitment to reverse the transaction at the same exchange rate.

It is also modestly profitable, as the foreign central banks remit to the Fed the interest payments that they collect from borrowers. The Fed operated a similar program with a broader range of central banks from December 2007 through February 2010, then allowed it to lapse because demand had dried up amidst signs of improvement in the global economy. But the Fed was quickly forced to reverse course, announcing the new program in May 2010.

  .------------------------------------------------------

 THE NEW YORK TIMES 30.11.2011

Clinton Arrives in Myanmar to Assess Reforms

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/world/asia/clinton-arrives-in-myanmar-to-assess-reforms.html?hp

By STEVEN LEE MYERSPublished: November 30, 2011

NAY PYI DAW, Myanmar — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived here on Wednesday to measure the depth of the political and economic opening the country’s new government has unexpectedly begun.

After years of abysmal relations between the United States and Myanmar, the Obama administration has promised to respond to progress — Mrs. Clinton’s trip being the most significant reward so far — even as it presses for more significant steps to end the country’s repressive rule and international isolation.

Those include freeing hundreds more political prisoners, an end to often violent repression of democracy advocates and ethnic groups, and clarification of the country’s illicit cooperation with North Korea on developing ballistic missiles and, possibly, nuclear technologies.

Mrs. Clinton, speaking in Busan, South Korea, before flying here, said that the United States hoped that initial steps toward what President Obama has called flickers of progress would “be ignited into a movement for change that will benefit the people of the country.”

“I’m looking to determine for myself and on behalf of our government what is the intention of the current government with respect to continuing reforms, both political and economic,” she said.

Mrs. Clinton is scheduled to meet the country’s new president, U Thein Sein, on Thursday here, and her aides said the two would discuss the possibility of additional reciprocal steps both countries could make to ease decades of hostilities.

“We expect this to be a very thorough review of not only the steps that they have taken and what we expect to see in the future, but the things that the United States is prepared to do in response not only to these preliminary steps, but what might be possible if the process of reform and openness continues,” a senior administration official said.

Mrs. Clinton’s visit is the first by a secretary of state since John Foster Dulles visited in 1955, and only the second ever. An improved relationship with Myanmar, still known as Burma by the opposition and the United States, could reshape American diplomacy in the region at a time when the Obama administration seeks to shift its geopolitical focus toward Asia, in part to manage the political and economic dominance of China.

What additional steps, if any, the administration is willing to consider remains to be seen. Lifting the broad range of American sanctions imposed on trade with Myanmar is not yet on the agenda; that would require Congressional approval that would be likely only after far more sweeping reforms here.

Mrs. Clinton could announce smaller steps, though, like returning an ambassador or supporting aid and international financing for the tentative economic reforms that have taken root.

Administration officials said Mrs. Clinton first wanted to see whether Mr. Thein Sein’s government was prepared to take his own steps. Officials remain wary, disappointed that the government has not freed more of the 1,600 political prisoners still being held and that Mr. Thein Sein recently denied the existence of any of them. The senior administration official also noted that the administration’s initial efforts to engage Myanmar’s leaders in 2009 were “abysmal failures.”

Another issue of particular concern for the United States is Myanmar’s cooperation with North Korea, and American officials have pressed the government to agree to more vigorous inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Officials said the administration had hoped Myanmar would agree to that step ahead of the meeting of Southeast Asian Nations in Indonesia earlier this month, when President Obama announced Mrs. Clinton’s visit.

Senator Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, welcomed Mrs. Clinton’s trip but said resolving any questions about illicit nuclear research were fundamental to improved relations. “An early goal of the tentative U.S. re-engagement with Burma should be full disclosure of the extent and intent of the developing Burmese nuclear program,” Mr. Lugar said in a statement this week.

Mrs. Clinton’s aides said that Myanmar’s government had accommodated the demands of her delegation — which included dozens of officials, security guards and journalists — and imposed no restrictions of her activities. There were logistical challenges that dictated her schedule, including the fact the capital’s airport here was not equipped to handle a landing at night.

In addition to her meetings with government leaders and members of parliament here on Thursday, Mrs. Clinton will travel to Yangon and meet the Nobel Prize-winning opposition leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, at the house where she spent years under arrest as a symbol of quiet but determined resistance to military dictatorship. She plans to also meet with representatives of Myanmar’s long-repressed ethnic minority groups and leaders of nongovernmental organizations.

The decision to send Mrs. Clinton was debated among the White House, the State Department and members of Congress, many of whom remained critical. Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, the Republican chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Mrs. Clinton’s trip sent “the wrong signal.”

“Secretary Clinton’s visit represents a monumental overture to an outlaw regime whose D.N.A. remains fundamentally brutal,” Ms. Ros-Lehtinen said in statement Tuesday.

The changes under Mr. Thein Sein over the last eight months have included relaxing restrictions on the news media, politics and business, but not relinquishing the military’s ultimate authority.

Administration officials acknowledge that they do not fully understand how the government makes its decisions and whether the changes are merely superficial or the beginnings of an opening similar to Mikhail S. Gorbachev’s perestroika in the Soviet Union.

The senior administration official said that Mr. Thein Sein, a former general and prime minister, appeared far more open and well-traveled than his predecessor as president, Than Shwe.

“He spent an enormous amount of time traveling outside the country in meetings, interacting with others,” the official said. “And so it’s entirely possible that he had a chance to get a much better sense of what was going on in Southeast Asia, how far behind his country was falling, and what was necessary to take steps to at least address some of the challenges that they were facing going forward.”

.---------------------------------------

THE NEW YORK TIMES 30.11.2011

 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/business/global/china-reverses-economic- policy.html?_r=1&hp

China Unexpectedly Reverses Economic Policy

By KEITH BRADSHER       Published: November 30, 2011

HONG KONG – Faced with an economy that appears to be slowing faster than economists expected even a month ago, the Chinese government on Wednesday evening unexpectedly reversed its year-long move toward tighter monetary policy and took an important step to encourage banks to resume lending.

The central bank said Wednesday that commercial banks would be allowed to keep a slightly lower percentage of their deposits as reserves at the central bank. The change, which will take effect on Monday, means that commercial banks will have more money available to lend, which could help to rekindle economic growth and a slumping real estate market.

Real estate developers, small businesses and other borrowers have been complaining strenuously in recent weeks of weakening sales and scarce credit. Prices have dropped up to 28 percent for new apartments in some Chinese cities this autumn, real estate brokers have been laying off thousands of agents as transactions have dried up, and export orders have slumped.

The Chinese move was a particular surprise because the central bank usually announces moves on Friday evenings, to allow banks and markets plenty of time to digest the news.

The Chinese announcement came after the Shanghai stock market had slumped 3.3 percent on Wednesday, its worst one-day loss in four months, on worries that the government might not act.

The reduction in the so-called reserve requirement ratio came after the central bank had increased the same ratio six times this year, and raised interest rates three times. The monetary policy moves earlier this year had been aimed at curbing inflation, which persists but appears to have been replaced by weakening economic growth as the top worry for policymakers.

Monetary policy changes are made not by the country’s central bank but by the State Council, the country’s cabinet. Shifts in the broad direction of policy are usually made only with the approval of the Standing Committee of the Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party – the nine men who really run China.

Analysts said that the central bank’s decision to announce a change in reserve requirements instead of quietly nudging state-controlled banks to make more loans showed an important political decision had been made.

“The public nature of this move – a move that would have gone through the State Council – is a clear signal that Beijing has decided that the balance of risks now lies with growth, rather than inflation,” wrote Stephen Green, a China economist at Standard Chartered Bank, in a research note. “This is a big move, it signals China is now in loosening mode.”

The People’s Bank of China, the country’s central bank, cut the reserve requirement ratio by 0.5 percentage points as of Monday, to 21 percent for large banks and to 19 percent for smaller banks.

The Chinese move was such a surprise that one of the 15 members of the central bank's monetary policy committee, Xia Bin, had just said at a seminar in Beijing on Wednesday morning that China would only “fine tune” its monetary policy and would maintain an overall stance that he characterized as “prudent.”

Those remarks triggered the slump in share prices during Wednesday’s trading in Shanghai; the stock market there had been closed for several hours by the time the central bank announced its policy reversal.

It was unclear if the Chinese move had been coordinated with the six central banks in the United States, Europe and Japan that agreed an hour later to provide more liquidity to world financial markets.

    The United States Treasury notifies the Chinese government of policy moves by the Obama administration, so as to reassure the United States government's largest foreign creditor. But economists say that there has been little international coordination of monetary policy by China's central bank.

    The People’s Bank of China is considerably more secretive than central banks in the West and particularly wary of foreign governments because of years of international pressure to allow faster appreciation of the renminbi, China’s currency.

    The Chinese central bank provided no explanation for its move on Thursday evening. The one-sentence statement only said, “The People's Bank of China decided to cut financial institutions’ renminbi deposit reserve ratio by 0.5 percentage points.”

Easing domestic monetary policy makes it harder to maintain for China to maintain its policy of strictly limiting the appreciation of its currency, the renminbi, against the dollar. The Chinese central bank has been taking most of the money that commercial banks park with it as reserves and then using it to buy dollars in international markets, so as to slow the renminbi's appreciation.

    But economists have seen signs in the past month that international investors are losing their appetite for speculative investments in China's currency and have been buying fewer renminbi. That in turn has reduced the pressure from markets for the renminbi to appreciate and has meant that the central bank no longer needs to maintain its reserve requirements at record-high levels to raise the cash for its huge currency market intervention program.

   Among the most widely watched economic indicators in China are the various monthly indexes of orders, backlogs and other details, gathered through surveys of companies’ purchasing managers. HSBC’s preliminary survey for November, released last week, showed an overall index of 48; a reading below 50 suggests a slowing economy, and it was the lowest reading since March 2009, when the world economy was struggling to recover from the Lehman bankruptcy and ensuing financial shocks.

     The monthly release of the government’s survey is scheduled for Thursday morning in Beijing. It is widely expected to show a dip below 50 for the first time in more than two years.

    The central bank’s move on reserve requirements comes as inflation in consumer prices has started to slow, from a peak of 6.5 percent in May down to 5.5 percent in October, according to official data. But private economists say that the true rate of consumer inflation is up to twice as fast, as the official data has a series of methodological shortcomings; China’s National Bureau of Statistics has acknowledged some of these shortcomings, although not the extent of their effect on inflation measurements, and is working on solutions.

     Inflation in any case remains well above the government’s target of 4 percent. HSBC predicted in a research note on Wednesday evening that the government would not start reducing regulated interest rates for loans of various maturities until the official inflation rate falls below 3 percent.

.----------------------------------------------

 THE GUARDIAN  30.11.2011

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/30/iceland-recognises-palestinian-state

 Iceland recognises Palestinian state

Icelandic parliament passes resolution making country the first in western Europe to accept Palestine as an independent state

Associated Press   Wednesday 30 November 2011 08.45 GMT

guardian.co.uk