Once
again, we exploit whatever supports our arguments while ignoring
whatever works against them. In the case of Monti and his Greek
counterparts, it is useful to look at similarities and differences.
Monti has many advantages over Lucas Papademos, even though, like the
Greek PM, he is not a politician and was called on at the last moment to
apply an unpleasant austerity program. In this way, neither man has to
fear the political cost of his policies; but whereas Papademos has to
keep negotiating the length of his government’s tenure with the parties
that half-heartedly support it, Monti knows that he has about two years
in which to make the Italian economy more viable. The Italian prime
minister has moved fast in introducing reforms, whereas Papademos’s
predecessor, George Papandreou, was elected on a program that opposed
austerity and he had a hard time acknowledging the need to change it.
Furthermore,
Monti is able to make demands of Merkel and not the other way around:
He’s the leader of a major country, like hers, and Italy doesn’t owe
Germany. In fact, in a way, Germany has benefited from the crisis.
Whereas Italy’s borrowing costs reached the same level that had forced
Greece, Ireland and Portugal to ask for help from their eurozone
partners and the IMF, Italy carried on borrowing. At the same time,
Germany’s rate fell so low that people are paying it to hold German
debt! In this way, Italy, Greece and other countries are subsidizing the
German economy. (Let’s not forget, Greece is paying close to 5 percent
interest on its partners’ loans.)
In short, the Italian prime
minister took reform measures quickly, he was not forced to call for a
bailout of his country, and today he can draw “red lines” and demand
respect for Italians’ sacrifices. Greece’s leaders may have wanted the
same, but their fear in the face of populism and their lack of
confidence in their reforms resulted in delays, backtracking and in
everything that threatens the sacrifices of the Greeks and the support
of their partners.