Cry for Europe, but don’t weep

The collapse of European integration, a role model, is a blow to the world, but it is mostly self-inflicted.

The integration of Europe was probably the most audacious political project of the 20th century when you consider that the continent, twice, tore itself (and the world) apart in the World Wars. For those who say the conflict-ridden South Asia can never integrate more closely, Europe is a lesson. Later today, “is” may become “was” if the people of Greece — a relatively small country — vote to reject the terms of economic rescue set by their powerful counterparts in Northern Europe.

And that won’t be because Greece wants to leave either the single currency or the common market. It will be because the continent’s major powers led by Germany will consciously expel Greece from membership. Sadly, it will bring to an abrupt end a project that has ensured peace and prosperity for hundreds of millions of Europeans including those who came out of the Cold War in the early 1990s.

Why did things end up at the brink? Because, at some point, the ambitious politics of European integration chose to ignore complex economic reality. The reason Europe’s integration succeeded was because it delivered greater economic prosperity to its members (breaking down barriers to trade, by encouraging the movement of people — essentially by creating a large free market). It will collapse because it is no longer seen to be delivering economic prosperity for all — Greece has lost 25% of its GDP in five years while trying to comply with policies to keep its membership.

The seeds of destruction lay when the common currency, the euro, was introduced in 1999. A common currency restricts policy freedom in individual countries much more than a single market does — it robs a country of an independent monetary policy and a flexible exchange rate. Fortunately, not all the countries of the EU chose to sign up. In fact, not all should have been allowed to sign up. Greece was one of those never fit for membership — its economic productivity was light years behind Germany and Northern Europe, its fiscal situation was always precarious and its government notoriously inefficient and corrupt. It was only desperate aspiration on the part of Greece’s people (to belong to an elite club), woolly-headed idealism on the part of Germany and some clever statistical jugglery (to meet entry criteria) by Greece’s government that forced membership of the common currency. It took only a few years for it all to unravel as Greece’s economy was rendered totally uncompetitive, its debt unsustainable.

Of course, there was a way out — if only political idealism continued to soar and the rich countries of Europe effectively subsidised the poorer ones via fiscal transfers. The currency union between India’s 29 states works because Gujarat and Maharashtra subsidise Bihar and Orissa via the Central government. It works between America’s 50 odd states because wealthy California and New York subsidise less well off states in the Midwest. However, the 2008 global financial crisis, which caused much misery across all advanced countries, ended the appetite for such generosity in Europe, which lacked a single central fiscal authority. There would come a time when Germany’s voters would have only limited tolerance for their government subsidising Greece. It had arrived by 2014.

That is the crux of why Europe is in crisis. The economics of the currency union was always flawed. The politics of keeping it running was unsustainable. Now, even if some last minute develop- ments stave off a Greek exit, it is only likely to be temporary balm. Greece’s economy requires a miracle to turn around. That isn’t going to happen unless Germany allows massive debt write-offs, which its voters scoff at. Remember also, there are other countries like Portugal, Spain and Italy, who also have serious problems remaining competitive in the eurozone. Sooner or later, they will demand concessions as well.

In the long run, there are only two solutions for Europe. One, a complete political union, which is highly unlikely, given the strong nationalism in member countries. Two, an end to the common currency, the more likely outcome. In the interests of the rest of the world (inter-connected as we all are economically), an orderly breakdown of the eurozone would be far better than a messy exit for Greece, which could happen as early as the coming week. A lot of eyebrows were raised in social circles following recent publication of news reports that the Intelligence Bureau (IB) was planning to induct professionals in its ranks in order to augment its intelligence gathering apparatus. The news came out as if it was for the first time an intelligence agency was going to make use of people belonging to various professions, while the fact is that cloak and dagger games have always involved human assets from all walks of life.

It has to be clearly understood that the main purpose of an intelligence agency is to detect any kind of anti-national activity and therefore it has the mandate to deploy the people who could lead to those who are working against the interests of the country. Even politicians have been part of the IB apparatus in the past.

A well known politician, who served in the Union Council of Ministers at different times, was an informer of the IB and would brief its functionaries even the details of Cabinet meetings at times. In fact, the IB had helped him over the years to build up his political profile and had contributed in many ways to his success. His brief was to keep the bosses informed about the developments, although the purpose in this instance was not to track anti-nationals but to gather vital information. After all, information is the biggest weapon anyone can ever have. Therefore, it should not surprise anyone if there are active politicians in various parties who are also informers of various agencies.

There have been reports in the past which suggested that even a former Prime Minister had links with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the United States, which had, in addition, cultivated many moles in the Indian ruling class. Indira Gandhi, during her Prime Ministership, had declared some foreign nationals persona non grata and had also drawn up a list of Indians believed to be helping them in collection of information. The Indian list included some journalists, among whom was a distinguished editor, who at the time was close to an opposition party. It is another matter that the journalist in question thrived during the Rajiv years and even after that.

Journalists all over the world are known to have links with intelligence agencies, which in most cases are due to the honest pursuit of their profession and to obtain important information. However, in some instances, journalists also act as conduits of information for those they are close to. The Soviets, during the Cold War, would view every Western journalist posted in Moscow as an agent of some intelligence agency. A friend, during a trip to Moscow in the 1980s, recalled that he came across an interpreter in the elevator, who looked at his accreditation card and said smilingly that he too was a journalist for his country.

A number of journalists posted in Pakistan, for instance, were constantly hounded by the Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) of that country on mere suspicion that they may be working for some Indian organisation. Pakistani journalists here were much better off, but their close contact with their own high commission did arouse suspicion in many quarters.

Virtually every embassy or high commission has an intelligence person on its strength, both declared and undercover. In addition, the NGOs, various levels of bureaucracy, chartered accountants, management gurus, university professors and doctors and engineers are among the professions from which recruitment is made. In West Asia, telephone companies are used to obtain access in the same manner in which railroad companies were used in South America during the 1970s and 1980s by the American intelligence agencies.

It is well known that most of the operatives have dual or multiple identities and sometimes even lose track of how many times their names have undergone a change. Thus, when professionals are hired, their vocation becomes a perfect method for camouflaging others. Vigilance, after all, is the price for democracy and in every society the practice of obtaining information on enemies and even potential friends is regularly acquired.

Intelligence gathering at the national level is the evolved methodology of what police does routinely. Beat constables and division officers gather information from regular informers to check crime in their respective areas and cities. Similarly, intelligence operatives do it for their country.

There has always been a strong case for strengthening our information gathering apparatus, which gets impacted due to both shortage of personnel as also sometimes due to the rivalry between the cadres and the deputationists, who normally come from the Indian Police Service (IPS) and invariably have a monopoly on the top positions.

The IB has, to its credit, many achievements and some of its field operatives have proved that they were second to none. In fact, many well planned operations like Operation Black Thunder II became successful due to meticulous planning and deep penetration into anti national groups. The present NSA, Ajit Doval was one of the best field officers the IB has had and it is expected that he would take intelligence gathering to another level. Between us.