Grexit ala kapitulazioa?

Lotsagarria da gertatzen ari dena zenbait berripaperetan eta aldizkaritan. Syriza ezkertiarra da, definizioz noski. Greziako Yanis Varoufakis finantza ministroa apartekoa da, oso ona, definizioz noski (marxista omen gainera).

Berdin die zer esaten dute ekonomialari kritikoek, baita Varoufakis-en lagunen batek edo bestek ere. Datuak hor daude, berdin die.

Eta zer esaten dute Greziarrek berek?

Behean ikusiko dugu kritikoa den greziar batek, Syriza-ko politikaria den Stathis Kouvelakis-ek dioena. Berdin die.

Hala ere, irakurle kritikoek bestelako jarrera bat merezi dute, informazio desberdina. Greziako etengabeko fartsa lotsagarritik¹ at egon daitekeen jarrera, alegia.

Hasteko, beraz, goazen Bill Mitchell-ekin. Berak dioenez, Greziak bi aukera dauzka besterik ez: Grexit ala kapitulazioa. (Friday lay day – The Troika is the enemy and its either exit or capitulation²)

Mitchell-i irakurri diogunez,

i) Greziako gobernuak 459 milioi euro ordaindu dizkio NMF-ri³…

ii) Nola ordaindu daiteke porrot hori? Langabezia gehiago eta pobrezia handiagoa sortuz…

iii) Lasaitasuna? Zertarako? Troika lasaitzeko…

iv) James Galbraith-en apologiak dioenez, Syriza hauxe da: The Real Thing: An Anti-austerity European Government. Benetan barregarria…

v) Syriza atrapatuta dauka indar ez-demokratiko batek, zeinak ez baitu pentsatzen austeritatea bere agendatik kentzea, inondik inora.

vi) Konparatu James Galbraith-ek dioena Sthakis Kouvelakis-ek aipatzen duenarekin (Dangerous Days Ahead delakoarekin).

Zehazki,

vii) Europako ezkerra, “… is enchanted with this ideal of ‘Europe’ as an expression of sophistication and unity.”… “It is a pipe dream.”

viii) Baina, “ ..there will never be a functional and effective European economy with one fiscal authority and one sympathetic monetary authority.”

Mitchell-ek dioenez,

a) Syrizak eurogunean egoten segitu nahi du, Europako ezkerraren idealismoan sartuta dagoelako⁴.

b) Mehatxu handian oinarritzen da jarrera hori. Greziako jendeak uste du eurogunean segitzea ona dela⁵.

c) Syrizak gauza bera sinesten du. Alemaniak ez du nahi Grezia eurogunetik irtetea⁶, Grezia irtetean hobeto egongo delako, eta eurogunean segitzen duten herrialdeekiko etsenplu txarra izango delako.

d) Syrizak mantentzen du ez daukala negoziatzeko boterea, irtete horretan.

e) Beraz, “In Moscow, its Prime Minister reiterated that: The goal of the government is for Greece to remain in the euro⁷.”

Fartsak aurrera darrai⁸, Galbraith-ek Troikak ‘rol legitimoa’ duela dioen bitartean⁹…

“The IMF is unelected by the Greek people. The ECB is unelected by the Greek people. The EU is a distant bureaucrasy. None are accountable to the Greek people.”

Beste alde batetik, Sirizako Stathis Kouvelakis-ek Greziako egoeraz oso iritzi interesgarriak plazaratu ditu¹⁰.

(Halaber, ikus jadanik plazaraturiko Sirizaren denbora bukatuz doa…¹¹)

Kouvelakis-ek Syrizaren eta Troikaren arteko azken negoziazioak honela deskribatzen ditu, ‘etsaiak’ hitza aipatuz:

“… the Greek government really had its back up against the wall in its discussions with its so-called European partners. (I could hardly think of a less appropriate term, given that they are in fact its enemies, resolute enemies who are extremely determined to defeat it.)”

Eurogunean austeritatearekin bukatzeko, honela dio Kouvelakis-ek demokraziari dagokionez:

“Now we can say that we’ve seen the limits of this strategy. We’ve seen that these European institutions are not receptive to this kind of political or democratic argument, which says “we’re an elected government with a mandate to carry out, and you’re our central bank, and we can expect you to do your work and let us do what we were elected to do”.”

Troikaren rol legitimoaz dela eta, argi dauka Troika berriz hortxe dagoela, politika neoliberalekin¹².

Kouvelakis-en esperantza:

“… “the confrontation isn’t over yet” and Syriza has to “put an alternative approach in place in order to avoid a repeat of what was decided in February”.”

Mitchell-ek bukatzen du bere artikulua 1981eko maiatzean François Miterrand-en garaipena gogoratuz¹³ eta zein testuingurutan gertatu zen¹⁴. Zer nolako programa aurkeztu zuen¹⁵. Baita Miterrand-en geroko neoliberalismoaren bilakaera ere¹⁶.

Denbora hartako egoera eta gaurko Syrizaren egoera parekatuz¹⁷, honela diosku ekonomialari australiarrak:

“While noting differences between the origins of Syriza and Mitterand’s PS (Socialist Party), Stathis Kouvelakis observed that both governments were caught in the ‘European’ dilemma.”

Miterrand-en aspaldiko dilema¹⁸ eta Syrizaren gaurko dilema¹⁹ antzekoak dira.

Kouvelakis-ek dioenez,

“Either it takes a path of rupture with the European framework … or else it will have to give in, which would be a very heavy defeat with potentially disastrous consequences. Not only for Greece, but also for the whole political struggle going on in Europe at the present moment.”

Eurogunean segitzeak ‘austeritate neoliberalarekin’ segitzea esan nahi du. Syrizaren existentziaren beraren ukapena, James Galbraith-ek ulertzen ez duena.

Kouvelakis-en hitzekin:

“If the enemy — and it is an enemy — knows in advance that there is a line that you won’t cross, he’ll naturally focus all his pressure exactly there. And that’s exactly what’s happened, and will continue up to the point of besieging Greece and forcing its capitulation.”²⁰

Hortaz, Mitchell-ek argi dauka:

i) Greziako lehen ministroa Europako eliteen esku dago jolasten, berak eurogunean segitu nahi duela aipatzen duenean.

ii) Aipatutako negoziaketa fitxa hori barik, Siriza zapalduta egongo da. “I agree with Stathis Kouvelakis “there is no middle course between rupture and capitulation”.”

iii) Troikaren beldurra hauxe da: “… with rupture Greece would succeed.”

iv) Eta hain zuzen ere horixe da puntua: “That is the point. The elites are scared of rupture, which gives Syriza a powerful weapon – one that it seemingly will not use, yet.”²¹

Grexit ala kapitulazioa? To be or not to be, that’s the question.