People have been full of ready-made comments about Varoufaskis as “trojan horse” or “selling out”. From listening to him over the past four years I knew this was never the case. He has my esteem and respect.
--SMR
Yanis Varoufakis opens up about his five month battle to save Greece
In
his first interview since resigning, Greece's former Finance Minister
says the Eurogroup is “completely and utterly” controlled by
Germany, Greece was “set up” and last week’s referendum was
wasted.
13
July, 2015
Greece
has finally reached an agreement with its creditors. The specifics
have not yet been published, but it is clear that the deal signed is
more punitive and demanding than the one that its government has
spent the past five months desperately trying to resist.
The
accord follows 48 hours in which Germany demanded control of Greece’s
finances or its withdrawal from the euro. Many observers across
Europe were stunned by the move. Yanis Varoufakis was not. When I
spoke with Greece’s former finance minister last week, I asked him
whether any deal struck in the days ahead would be good for his
country.
“If
anything it will be worse,” he said. “I trust and hope that our
government will insist on debt restructuring, but I can’t see how
the German finance minister [Wolfgang Schäuble] is ever going to
sign up to this. If he does, it will be a miracle.”
It’s
a miracle the Greek people are likely to be waiting for a long time
for. On Friday night, when Greece’s parliament agreed to an
austerity programme that voters had overwhelmingly rejected in a
referendum five days earlier, a deal seemed imminent. A partial
write-off of its debt owed to the so-called "Troika" –
the IMF, the European Central bank and the European Commission –
was unlikely but possible. Now, despite its government’s
capitulation, Greece has no debt relief and may yet be thrown out of
the Eurozone.
Varoufakis,
who resigned a week ago, has been criticised for not signing an
agreement sooner, but he said the deal that Greece was offered was
not made in good faith – or even one that the Troika wanted
completed. In an hour-long telephone interview with the New
Statesman,
he called the creditors’ proposals – those agreed to by the
Athens government on Friday night, which now seem somehow generous –
“absolutely impossible, totally non-viable and toxic …[they were]
the kind of proposals you present to another side when you don’t
want an agreement.”
Varoufakis
added: “This country must stop extending and pretending, we must
stop taking on new loans pretending that we’ve solved the problem,
when we haven’t; when we have made our debt even less sustainable
on condition of further austerity that even further shrinks the
economy; and shifts the burden further onto the have-nots, creating a
humanitarian crisis.”
In
Varoufakis’s account, the Troika never genuinely negotiated during
his five months as finance minister. He argued that Alexis Tsipras’s
Syriza government was elected to renegotiate an austerity programme
that had clearly failed; over the past five years it has put a
quarter of Greeks out of work, and created the worst depression
anywhere in the developed world since the 1930s. But he thinks that
Greece’s creditors simply led him on.
A
short-term deal could, Varoufakis said, have been struck soon after
Syriza came to power in late January. “Three or four reforms”
could have been agreed, and restrictions on liquidity eased by the
ECB in return.
Instead,
“The other side insisted on a ‘comprehensive agreement’, which
meant they wanted to talk about everything. My interpretation is that
when you want to talk about everything, you don’t want to talk
about anything.” But a comprehensive agreement was impossible.
“There were absolutely no [new] positions put forward on
anything by them.”
Varoufakis
said that Schäuble, Germany’s finance minister and the architect
of the deals Greece signed in 2010 and 2012, was “consistent
throughout”. “His view was ‘I’m not discussing the programme
– this was accepted by the previous [Greek] government and we can’t
possibly allow an election to change anything.
“So
at that point I said ‘Well perhaps we should simply not hold
elections anymore for indebted countries’, and there was no answer.
The only interpretation I can give [of their view] is, ‘Yes, that
would be a good idea, but it would be difficult. So you either sign
on the dotted line or you are out.’”
It
is well known that Varoufakis was taken off Greece’s negotiating
team shortly after Syriza took office; he was still in charge of the
country’s finances but no longer in the room. It’s long been
unclear why. In April, he said vaguely that it was because “I try
and talk economics in the Eurogroup” – the club of 19 finance
ministers whose countries use the Euro – “which nobody does.” I
asked him what happened when he did.
“It’s
not that it didn’t go down well – there was point blank refusal
to engage in economic arguments. Point blank. You put forward an
argument that you’ve really worked on, to make sure it’s
logically coherent, and you’re just faced with blank stares. It is
as if you haven’t spoken. What you say is independent of what they
say. You might as well have sung the Swedish national anthem –
you’d have got the same reply.”
This
weekend divisions surfaced within the Eurogroup, with countries
split between those who seemed to want a “Grexit” and those
demanding a deal. But Varoufakis said they were always been united in
one respect: their refusal to renegotiate.
“There
were people who were sympathetic at a personal level, behind closed
doors, especially from the IMF.” He confirmed that he was referring
to Christine Lagarde, the IMF director. “But then inside the
Eurogroup [there were] a few kind words and that was it: back behind
the parapet of the official version. … Very powerful figures look
at you in the eye and say ‘You’re right in what you’re saying,
but we’re going to crunch you anyway’.”
Varoufakis
was reluctant to name individuals, but added that the governments
that might have been expected to be the most sympathetic towards
Greece were actually their “most energetic enemies”. He said that
the “greatest nightmare” of those with large debts – the
governments of countries like Portugal, Spain, Italy and Ireland
– “was our success”. “Were we to succeed in negotiating
a better deal, that would obliterate them politically: they would
have to answer to their own people why they didn’t negotiate like
we were doing.”
He
suggested that Greece’s creditors had a strategy to keep his
government busy and hopeful of a compromise, but in reality they were
slowly suffering and eventually desperate.
“They
would say we need all your data on the fiscal path on which Greek
finds itself, all the data on state-owned enterprises. So we spent a
lot of time trying to provide them with it and answering
questionnaires and having countless meetings.
“So
that would be the first phase. The second phase was they’d ask us
what we intended to do on VAT. They would then reject our proposal
but wouldn’t come up with a proposal of their own. And then, before
we would get a chance to agree on VAT, they would shift to another
issue, like privatisation. They would ask what we want to do
about privatisation: we put something forward, they would reject
it. Then they’d move onto another topic, like pensions, from there
to product markets, from there to labour relations. … It was like a
cat chasing its own tail.”
His
conclusion was succinct. “We were set up.”
And
he was adamant about who is responsible. I asked whether German
attitudes control the outlook of the Eurogroup. Varoufakis went
further. “Oh completely and utterly. Not attitudes – the
finance minister of Germany. It is all like a very well-tuned
orchestra and he is the director.
“Only
the French minister [Michel Sapin] made noises that were different
from the German line, and those noises were very subtle.
You could sense he had to use very judicious language, to be seen not
to oppose. And in the final analysis, when Dr Schäuble responded and
effectively determined the official line, the French minister would
always old.”
If
Schäuble was the unrelenting enforcer, the German chancellor Angela
Merkel presented a different face. While Varoufakis never dealt with
her, he said, “From my understanding, she was very different.
She tried to placate the Prime Minister [Tsipras] – she said
‘We’ll find a solution, don’t worry about it, I won’t let
anything awful happen, just do your homework and work with the
institutions, work with the Troika; there can be no dead end here.’”
The
divide seems to have been brief, and perhaps even deliberate.
Varoufakis thinks that Merkel and Schäuble’s control over the
Eurogroup is absolute, and that the group itself is beyond the law.
Days
before Varoufakis’s resignation on 6 July, when Tsipras called the
referendum on the Eurogroup’s belated and effectively unchanged
offer, the Eurogroup issued a communiqué without Greek consent. This
was against Eurozone convention. The move was quietly criticised by
some in the press before being overshadowed by the build-up to the
referendum, but Varoufakis considered it pivotal.
WhenJeroen
Dijsselbloem, the European Council President, tried to issue the
communiqué without him, Varoufakis consulted Eurogroup clerks –
could Dijsselbloem exclude a member state? The meeting was
briefly halted. After a handful of calls, a lawyer turned to him and
said, “Well, the Eurogroup does not exist in law, there is no
treaty which has convened this group.”
“So,”
Varoufakis said, “What we have is a non-existent group that has the
greatest power to determine the lives of Europeans. It’s not
answerable to anyone, given it doesn’t exist in law; no minutes are
kept; and it’s confidential. No citizen ever knows what is said
within . . . These are decisions of almost life and death, and no
member has to answer to anybody.”
Events
this weekend seem to support Varoufakis’ account. On Saturday
evening, a memo leaked that showed Germany was suggesting Greece
should take a “timeout” from the Eurozone. By the end of the day,
Schäuble’s recommendation was the conclusion of the Eurogroup’s
statement. It’s unclear how that happened; the body operates in
secret. While Greeks hung on reports of their fate this weekend, no
minutes were released from any meetings.
The
referendum of 5 July has also been rapidly forgotten. It was
preemptively dismissed by the Eurozone, and many people saw it as a
farce – a sideshow that offered a false choice and created false
hope, and was only going to ruin Tsipras when he later signed the
deal he was campaigning against. As Schäuble supposedly said,
elections cannot be allowed to change anything. But Varoufakis
believes that it could have changed everything. On the night of the
referendum he had a plan, Tsipras just never quite agreed to it.
The
Eurozone can dictate terms to Greece because it is no longer fearful
of a Grexit. It is convinced that its banks are now protected if
Greek banks default. But Varoufakis thought that he still had some
leverage: once the ECB forced Greece’s banks to close, he could act Цunilaterally.
He
said he spent the past month warning the Greek cabinet that the ECB
would close Greece’s banks to force a deal. When they did, he was
prepared to do three things: issue euro-denominated IOUs; apply a
“haircut” to the bonds Greek issued to the ECB in 2012, reducing
Greece’s debt; and seize control of the Bank of Greece from the
ECB.
None
of the moves would constitute a Grexit but they would have threatened
it. Varoufakis was confident that Greece could not be expelled by the
Eurogroup; there is no legal provision for such a move. But only by
making Grexit possible could Greece win a better deal. And Varoufakis
thought the referendum offered Syriza the mandate they needed to
strike with such bold moves – or at least to announce them.
He
hinted at this plan on the eve of the referendum, and reports later
suggested this was what cost him his job. He offered a clearer
explanation.
As
the crowds were celebrating on Sunday night in Syntagma
Square, Syriza’s six-strong inner cabinet held a critical vote. By
four votes to two, Varoufakis failed to win support for his plan, and
couldn’t convince Tsipras. He had wanted to enact his “triptych”
of measures earlier in the week, when the ECB first forced Greek
banks to shut. Sunday night was his final attempt. When he
lost his departure was inevitable.
“That
very night the government decided that the will of the people, this
resounding ‘No’, should not be what energised the energetic
approach [his plan]. Instead it should lead to major concessions to
the other side: the meeting of the council of political leaders, with
our Prime Minister accepting the premise that whatever
happens, whatever the other side does, we will never respond in any
way that challenges them. And essentially that means folding. …
You cease to negotiate.”
Varoufakis’s
resignation brought an end to a four-and-a-half year partnership with
Tsipras, a man he met for the first time in late 2010. An aide to
Tsipras had sought him out after his criticisms of George
Papandreou’s government, which accepted the first Troika bailout in
2010.
“He
[Tsipras] wasn’t clear back then what his views were, on the
drachma versus the euro, on the causes of the crises, and I had very,
well shall I say, ‘set views’ on what was going on. A
dialogue begun … I believe that I helped shape his views of what
should be done.”
And
yet Tsipras diverged from him at the last. He understands why.
Varoufakis could not guarantee that a Grexit would work. After Syriza
took power in January, a small team had, “in theory, on paper,”
been thinking through how it might. But he said that, “I’m not
sure we would manage it, because managing the collapse of a monetary
union takes a great deal of expertise, and I’m not sure we have it
here in Greece without the help of outsiders.” More years of
austerity lie ahead, but he knows Tsipras has an obligation to “not
let this country become a failed state”.
Their
relationship remains “extremely amicable”, he said, although when
we spoke on Thursday, they hadn’t talked all week.
Despite
failing to strike a new deal, Varoufakis does not seem disappointed.
He told me he is “on top of the world.”
“I no
longer have to live through this hectic timetable,” he said,
“which was absolutely inhuman, just unbelievable. I was on two
hours sleep every day for five months. … I’m also relieved I
don’t have to sustain any longer this incredible pressure to
negotiate for a position I find difficult to defend.”
His
relief is unsurprising. Varoufakis was appointed to negotiate
with a Europe that didn’t want to talk, no longer feared a “Grexit”
and effectively controlled the Greek treasury’s bank accounts. Many
commentators think he was foolish, and the local and foreign
journalists I met last week in Athens spoke of him as if he was a
criminal. Some people will never forgive him for strangling a nascent
recovery by reopening negotiations. And others will blame him for
whichever harsh fate awaits Greece this week.
But
Varoufakis seemed unconcerned. Throughout our conversation he never
raised his voice. He came across as imperturbably calm, and often
chuckled. His conservation wasn’t tinged with regret; he appears to
be treating the loss of power as ambivalently as he treated its
acquisition.
Now
he will remain an MP and continue to play a role in Syriza. He will
also return to a half-finished book on the crisis, mull the new
offers publishers have already begun to send him, and may return to
the University of Athens in some capacity after two years teaching in
Texas.
By
resigning and not signing a deal he abhorred, he has kept both his
conscience free and his reputation intact. His country remains locked
in a trap he spent years opposing and months fighting, but he has
escaped.
This
article was corrected at 14.18 on 13/7/15 to say it was Jeroen
Dijsselbloem, not Tusk, who issued the communique, and was also
changed to reflect the fact that Varoufakis wishes to continue being
in politics.
Varoufakis on the ABC
Yanis
Varoufakis interviewed by the wonderful Philip Adams of the ABC
For
podcast GO HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.