Greece failed to make a €1.6 billion payment due to the International Monetary Fund yesterday, making it the first developed country in the world to default to the IMF. The Greek government had asked for a postponement of the payment to permit the country to conduct a referendum on a series of austerity measures demanded by its creditors to extend repayment. After European Union negotiators refused, it was not clear how Greece would respond.
This morning, Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras said the country would “conditionally accept” most proposed austerity measures, but he also indicated that the national referendum on the measures would proceed to a vote on July 5 as scheduled. If voters reject the austerity measures, as Tsipras has campaigned for them to do, Greece’s future in the Eurozone would be cast into doubt.
What do you think? Should the Greek government accept the austerity measures demanded by the International Monetary Fund and the European Union in exchange for the loan restructuring it desires? Should Greece consider exiting the Eurozone? And what would the impacts of an exit be both for Greece and for the European Union more generally?
Less than a week after International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde accused the Greek government of failing to negotiate in good faith, it appears Greece, the IMF and the European Union are no closer to reaching a deal to restructure or postpone Greece’s looming debt crisis. Greece faces a massive €1.6bn payment due on June 30. The Greek government has already indicated it will not be able to make the payment, an option the IMF says is not acceptable.
The Greek government has several options. It may compromise with the European Union and the IMF and cut spending on social services as part of a wider austerity package. But according to the Greek government, the effects of such a move would be devastating. Equally important from their perspective, it would violate a central campaign promise made by the center-left government less than a year ago.
If no agreement can be reached by June 30, Greece could default on its loan payment. If Greece defaulted, it could be forced to exit the Eurozone. No country has ever left the Eurozone so it is unclear what that process would look like or who would be responsible for making that decision.
What do you think? Can Greece reach an agreement with the EU and the IMF to avoid default? What might that deal look like? Or is Greece better off defaulting on its loan payments? Why?
Violence erupts on the streets of Athens in response to the Greek parliament's approval of harsh austerity measures demanded by the EU and IMF.
The financial crises that have gripped debt-ridden countries in the eurozone in the last year offer some excellent examples of the challenges and complexities of “two-level games.” A two-level game, as defined by political scientist Robert Putnam, refers to a common situation faced by political leaders when negotiating agreements such as trade deals with foreign states. To reach an acceptable agreement a leader must take into account the demands of actors at two levels: the domestic level and the international level. For example, in negotiating a trade deal with China, President Obama would need to try to balance the demands of China’s government with the demands of domestic actors such as Congress and business or labor interest groups. These demands restrict the set of acceptable outcomes at each level, and the final agreement must therefore be located within that window of overlap where both domestic and international actors would find an agreement acceptable. The absence of an overlapping set of acceptable options would ordinarily produce a negotiating failure (examples might include the Kyoto and International Criminal Court Treaties, which President Clinton favored but could not get the U.S. Senate to ratify). The theory of two-level games also highlights the fact that leaders can use constraints at one level to gain leverage at the second level. So Obama might tell China’s leaders that he can’t budge any further on trade concessions due to American business demands, or he might tell Congress this is the best deal they’re going to get from an intransigent Chinese leadership.
What does all of this have to do with the eurozone financial crises? Debt-ridden countries such as Ireland, Portugal, and Greece have sought emergency loans from the European Union and the International Monetary Fund in order to stay afloat financially, but the EU and IMF have attached strict conditions to these loans. Recipient countries have been required to enact harsh austerity measures designed to correct the problems that necessitated the emergency bailouts. These unpopular measures include raising taxes, slashing welfare spending, and cutting government jobs and pensions. Leaders such as the Prime Ministers of Ireland and Greece have faced strong opposition to these internationally imposed demands from a range of domestic actors (the general public, interest groups, and some members of parliament). George Papandreou, the Greek Prime Minister, narrowly survived a no confidence vote in parliament on June 22, and violent protests have erupted in the streets of Athens in response to the proposed austerity measures. Papandreou succeeded in holding together enough domestic support to get these measures approved by parliament, although clashes between riot police and protesters escalated after the vote.
But this isn’t the end of the story. As Foreign Policy blogger David Rothkopf notes in a post entitled “15 Things the Greek Austerity Vote Won’t Accomplish,” the parliament’s decision to approve the controversial measures “won’t guarantee that Greece sticks with the plan that’s approved. Riots in the streets illustrate that the people of Greece are deeply unhappy with what they perceive as a foreign-imposed squeeze. They can force a political reversal that leads to a policy reversal.” In other words, round one of this two-level game may have been won by actors at the international level, but the game continues…and domestic actors in Greece, Portugal, and elsewhere may yet be able to exert sufficient pressure on their leaders to change the game decisively in their favor.
Perhaps the most shocking news from the previous week came in a series of stories and rumors that the U.S. government may move to nationalize some banks in an attempt to address the ongoing global economic crisis. In an interview on Tuesday, former Federal Reserve Chairman (and ardent free marketeer) commented that, “It may be necessary to temporarily nationalize some banks in order to facilitate a swift and orderly restructuring.” In the same story, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham concurred, noting, “If nationalization is what works, then we should do it.” Speculation that Citibank and Bank of America may be the first banks to be nationalized drove their stock values down and led to both dramatic selloffs on Wall Street and a sharp increase in the price of gold, normally used to hedge against uncertainty. The events forced the Obama administration to attempt to reassure global markets, as White House Press Secretary Robert Ribbs said, “This administration continues to strongly believe that a privately held banking system is the correct way to go, ensuring that they are regulated sufficiently by this government. That’s been our belief for quite some time, and we continue to believe that.” Remember when the Democrats were the ones who wanted greater government control over the economy, and Republicans opposed such intervention? Seems the global financial crisis makes the conventional wisdom less and less relevant.
Here are five stories from the previous week you might have missed if you’ve been trying to keep the players in the nationalization debate straight:
1. On Friday, the government of Mexico confirmed the country was following the general trend in much of the rest of the world, heading into recession. In the final quarter of 2008, the Mexican economy contracted by 1.6 percent. In an attempt to stimulate the economy, the government cut interest rates. But close ties to the ailing U.S. economy have acted as a drag on the Mexican economy, undermining the ability of the Mexican government to develop an effective stimulus program.
2. The United Nations-backed naval taskforce in the Gulf of Aden appears to have been generally successful in addressing the problem of piracy in the region. A number of U.S. and E.U. naval vessels, as well as ships from several other navies, have been operating off the coast of Somalia in an attempt to curtail the piracy which had become endemic to the region. The government of Somalia remains unable to assert control over its territorial waters, and piracy was one of the few ways in which Somalis were able to earn a living.
3. The government of Pakistan and Taliban fighters in the northwestern part of the country agreed to a “permanent ceasefire” on Saturday. In exchange for agreeing to the ceasefire, the Pakistani government has offered to reinstate Islamic sharia law in the region. Many observers are concerned that the ceasefire may create a safe haven in Pakistan for Taliban and al Qaeda fighters could regroup.
4. Latvia’s Prime Minister, Ivars Godmanis, became the second victim of the global financial crisis on Friday, as he was forced to resign from office amid widespread popular protest. Like the government of Iceland before it, the Latvian government had been forced by the global economic downturn to launch a series of austerity measures imposed by the International Monetary Fund. A number of other countries in Central and Eastern Europe, including Hungary and Ukraine, have already implemented structural adjustment programs. Several others, including Serbia, Romania, Lithuania, and Estonia, are also seen as vulnerable.
5. The conflict in Sri Lanka continues. After the government had made significant advances into rebel territory over the past several weeks, Tamil Tiger rebels responded on Friday night with a surprise air raid on the Sri Lankan capital, Colombo. Initial reports indicated that at least 42 people were injured in the attack. An estimated 70,000 people have been killed since the civil war began in 1983.
Posted in Almond Comparative Politics Today 9/e, Almond Comparative Politics Today: ATF 5/e, Art/Jervis International Politics 9/e, Danziger Understanding the Political World 9/e, Draper The Good Society, Goldstein International Relations 8/e, Goldstein International Relations Brief 4/e, Nye Understanding International Conflicts 7/e, Roskin Countries and Concepts 10/e, Roskin IR 7/e, Viotti International Relations and World Politics 4/e
Tagged al Qaeda, austerity, bank, civil war, Five Stories You Might Have Missed, global financial crisis, government resignation, International Monetary Fund, intervention, Lativa, Mexico, nationalization, Pakistan, piracy, recession, Somalia, Sri Lanka, structural adjustment, Taliban, Tamil Tigers, United Nations, United States