President Emmanuel Macron’s translated interview with the FT’s new editor and its Paris bureau chief
“In this crisis enter a humanity where everything is fragmenting, where what we thought was worthless, becomes scarce and must be produced in other countries, and where we tell people they can’t even cross the street. It’s a profound change, from which we will all come out different”.
Global trade and the use of container ships increased from the 1960s to the 1990s, followed by the globalisation of finance and the digital economy from 2000 onwards and it’s obvious that it’s starting to overheat, creating three major problems:
Globalisation has created inequalities in developed countries the middle classes and workers are saying “I don’t see myself in this globalisation. I am sacrificed to it.” I can buy cheaper things but I don’t have any work, because there is no more space for me in this society, it’s society for the super-talented, and what I can do is no longer valuable.”
It’s clear that economy is no longer the priority. And when it’s a matter of humanity, women and men but also the ecosystems in which they live, and so CO2, global warming, biodiversity, there is something more important than the economic order.
This problem is being joined by the rise of a power game in which people rediscover the grammar of sovereignty – the idea that the people are not just consumers or producers, they are citizens, and they want to start controlling the choices they make It puts the human back in the middle.
Macron explained: “The basis of sovereignty is that it structures our balance, and you actually see that during shocks, like an epidemic. When you are afraid, you don’t turn towards Amazon, Google, globalisation, you don’t turn towards the secretary-general of the United Nations, the European Commission etc . . . You turn towards your country”.
The third major phenomenon is the matter of climate which goes hand in hand with the health agenda
In 2019, more than 77 leading American medical groups signed a policy agenda calling for climate action
Macron believes the climate agenda must come back to the foreground, because it goes hand in hand with the health agenda: “We will exit this crisis, and people will no longer agree to breathing polluted air. You’ll see something that was already rising in our societies, people will come out and say “I don’t want to breathe this air. I don’t agree to make such choices which will result in me breathing that type of air, where my little baby might catch bronchitis because of it, because choosing that type of society makes it so. And you have accepted the idea of shutting down everything to stop Covid, but now you are ready to let me go on breathing bad air.”
He adds that we will have to rethink production according to a just balance of CO2 emissions and of biodiversity and so of the safekeeping of our ecosystems. By agreeing to re-fragment things in a non-conflictual way, to reduce emissions, we will rethink logistics, in order to avoid importing a component from across the globe, because we will produce it on our territory to reduce its carbon footprint, commenting, “In my opinion that is what we are heading towards”
Last week, Emmanuel Macron said in an interview with the FT that delocalisation (offshoring) had become “unsustainable” and that the EU should regain industrial sovereignty.
He believes this shock we are currently going through will force us to review globalisation, and bring us to rethink society’s terms. The approval of a fluid world where everything is worth the same, produced anywhere, exchanged neutrally, is no longer universal.
In another speech this week he spoke of a new economic model, of the need to rebuild an agricultural, health, industrial and technological independence. “I believe that we are about to exit a world . . . where there was financial hegemony and hegemony of the non-co-operative military powers, and we can enter something which will enable us to reshuffle the cards. When people are scared of death and come back to these deep existential subjects, they co-operate”.
We have seen that we needed to reconsider goods and services we sometimes believed were worthless.
“We thought a mask or a medical overall had no value on a global commercial level. But it has value since it protects caregivers, and we acknowledged it during this crisis. It’s worth only 40 cents, not even a euro, but it becomes immensely valuable when we start running out of them and unable to produce enough”.
Regarding matters of the common good, military, health, technological, industrial, education, ecological, climate and other matters, we must decide what we must relocate, in our own country or region, in order to co-operate with others without being totally dependent on them.
We must become resilient, possessing the ability to say how we can prevent a risk of serious heatwave, another epidemic, a deterioration of our biodiversity which will affect our lives.
Earlier this week, Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and Charles Michel, president of the European Council, issued a paper saying there was a “pressing need to produce critical goods in Europe, to invest in strategic value chains and to reduce over-dependency on third countries in these areas”.
Thierry Breton, an EU trade commissioner also suggested earlier this month that “globalisation has gone too far”, not just in medical equipment but all strategic industrial sectors and agriculture. He acknowledged, in Le Figaro, that “the question posed to us by this crisis is that we may have gone too far in globalization and globalisation”. The question, he added, arises not only on health (drugs and medical equipment) but also on “strategic industrial areas” and on agriculture, saying “I am convinced that our relationship to the world after this crisis will be different.”
This crisis will enable us to invent something new for our humanity, as we have been discussing — that’s to say a new balance in interdependence between men and women in order to consider what it means to be in the world and which is built around education, health and environment.
Most of this summary was drawn from these two main sources:
In Canada, Britain, Greece, Italy and Spain, ‘a sense of revulsion at the political elite’ is leading a popular vote for those seen as trustworthy candidates, who care for the 99%.
In the New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary, Senator Bernie Sanders has gained 60% of the vote, compared with Hillary Clinton’s 38%. As noted earlier on this site, Sanders has a Corbyn-like appeal for younger voters and is attracting far larger audiences than expected. He has assembled an online fundraising operation and ‘electrified’ the youth vote with promises of a “political revolution” that would bring Scandinavian-type policies to the US.
The Times reports that, in a speech to his supporters after the contest, Mr Sanders said the result marked a new era, adding: “What the people here have said is that given the enormous crises facing our country, it is just too late for the same old, same old establishment politics and establishment economics”.
“A message that will echo from Wall Street to Washington”
Sanders’ message that that the government of our great country belongs to all of the people and not just a handful of wealthy campaign contributors and their Super PACs [political action committees] and that the economy is rigged in favour of a “billionaire class” struck a chord among New Hampshire voters who did not trust Mrs Clinton and her ties to Wall Street, reference being made to the “1%”.
According to exit polls, income inequality and jobs – two central themes of the Sanders campaign – were the top issues for Democrat voters. More than half said they were dissatisfied with the current state of politics. Just as people in Britian cared more about a candidate’s trustworthiness than about experience or electability, the same ranking of priorities has favoured Bernie Sanders.
Corbyn and Sanders offer the hope of peace and justice to a divided people, currently exploited by the wealthy 1%.
Michael Meacher was Minister of State for the Environment for six years, though for some reason Tony Blair did not appoint him to the Cabinet. Meacher gained a fine reputation, well-respected as a skilled negotiator and a minister with full command of his complex brief. He helped John Prescott to clinch the Kyoto agreement to limit carbon emissions in 1997 and was one of the first in Government to come to grips with the issue of global warming.
Meacher notes in his recent Global Research article , that after hi-jacking the party down a route utterly alien to its founders, in order to ingratiate himself with corporate and financial leaders on their terms . . . Tony Blair appears not to understand why the Corbyn earthquake is happening or the passionate resentment which he and New Labour created:
- by laying the foundations for the financial crash of 2008-9 and making the squeezed middle and brutally punished poor pay for it,
- by aligning New Labour alongside the Tories in pursuit of austerity from 2010 onwards, though Osborne’s policy (to shrink the State) has been unsuccessful in reducing the deficit,
- by taking Britain without any constitutional approval into an illegal was with Iraq,
- by introducing into politics the hated regime of spin and manipulation,
- by indulging now his squalid lust for money-making
- and by clearly having no more overriding desire than to strut the world with Bush.
He then asked three searching questions about Blair’s conduct:
Why did he urge the Blairites to support the government’s welfare bill which opposed every tenet of the real Labour Party?
Why did he push for privatisation of the NHS and other public services?
Why did his ally Mandelson say “New Labour is “relaxed at people becoming filthy rich”, and proved it by letting inequality balloon to even higher heights than under Thatcher?
And concluded: “He has a lot to learn . . .”
Read the whole article here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/tony-blair-is-living-in-a-state-of-deluded-denial/5473462
One article in the FT today reports that FTSE100 directors’ pay soared 21% in the past year while average wages in the UK have failed to keep up with inflation and the widening gulf between what executives and their employees earn is highlighted. Another shows a different regime.
Andres Schipani reports that Evo Morales won a third term as Bolivian president by a landslide on Sunday, according to exit polls, which registered roughly 60% support, after about 6m Bolivians went to the polls.
Opposition’s doubt and fears
This success is distressing for those pierced by Mr Morales’ ‘cries against imperialism’ and ‘distaste for capitalism’. Many corporate investors were adversely affected by his decision to take a number of the country’s utilities and commodities companies into state hands during his first two terms.
In the face of his undoubted social and economic achievements, they voice doubts about his administration’s ability to industrialise if it does not take a more pragmatic approach towards foreign investors.
They also express fears that the latest success in the polls could embolden his party, assisting ‘a tilt towards autocracy’ and an attempt to change the constitution to allow for additional presidential terms.
Schipani notes that the impoverished country has enjoyed growing influence since Morales took office, due to prudent economic policy and exports of natural gas to Brazil and Argentina, minerals to Asia. Higher wages have increased domestic demand and Bolivia’s GDP has nearly tripled to about $30bn since 2006. Morales intends to add value to Bolivia’s exports, one plan being to build long-life, rechargeable batteries using the country’s vast lithium deposits.
He won his first presidential election with 54% of the vote on promises to reverse centuries of subservience and inequality in one of Latin America’s poorest countries. Using ‘redistributive policies’, he strengthened his mandate in 2009 with 63% approval after changing the constitution, enabling one consecutive re-election for a sitting president.
These policies include higher wages – a minimum wage of 1200 bolivianos per month and an obligatory Christmas bonus equal to one month’s pay, pro-rated for the amount of time the worker has worked in their present position. Another is the Juancito Pinto cash transfer program – grants to students from low-income families, to offset the costs of transport, books and uniforms – which has had a positive impact on the levels of school enrolment and income distribution and some impact on poverty levels.
Morales’ supporters see him as a symbol of social inclusion, who brought improved living standards and stability to a long-suffering and volatile landlocked country. “He is like a father. He protects the poor, gives us money. We can see there is progress, something that never happened before”, said Inés Pacheco, an elderly peasant woman in El Alto.
David Cameron, please note.