WE HAVE ALL HAD ENOUGH! WE NEED A SOLUTION.

WE HAVE ALL HAD ENOUGH! WE NEED A SOLUTION

19/07/2015

Gentlemen,

We are meeting today to discuss a very important subject and consider adopting, among us, some very important decisions for the country.

The attached documents attempt to describe the current situation of our country’s finances while suggesting a way to get out of the mess that our leaders have put us in, particularly during the past two decades.

We have started in 1993 with an initial debt of around seven billion US dollars that were needed to finance the cost of the post-civil war reconstruction. The money was borrowed from private lenders at the horrendous rates that were prevalent at the time. These rates were gradually reduced, over the years to reach their current average of some 6.50%.

The seven billion dollars were never repaid. Every year, since 1994, the bonds were renewed with the unpaid interest added to them. Through this compound formula the seven billion dollars  initially borrowed have become now $72 billion dollars.

I believe that it is high time to stop and consider where we are going to and what ought to be done to bring that vicious trend to an end. We must act now, before it is too late. At the end of this publication, I have included some references to the Greek crisis in order to warn the readers about the necessity to act, if we do not want to suffer the same fate as the Greeks, if not worse.

I hope that we can put our minds together to find a way out of the maze for our country in danger.

Sincerely

George Sabat (ACMA)

Part One FOREWORD

I suspect that a group of influential businessmen who, directly or indirectly hold, a large portion of Lebanon’s public debt bonds, are eager, though they have not publicly announced it yet, to promote the privatisation of some large sectors of the country’s economy, such as the electricity, the water, the transports, the Beirut Port Authority, the Hariri International Airport and some others that I may have omitted.

Their aim is to recuperate, at favourable terms, the amount of their bond holdings through such a scheme, as they assume that the Nation will never be able to redeem them.

In order to counter such a program that could prove detrimental to the country, particularly in the current political circumstances, I believe that it is necessary for the country to agree upon a broad National Policy that will embody all the aspirations of the citizens for a sustained economic and social development.To achieve that purpose, I recommend to undertake, at the earliest possible opportunity, a thorough study of the Lebanese National Development Plan (L.N.D.P.). This Plan will embody the Country’s medium and long term policy and will translate the will and the aims of the Nation for the short, the medium, and the long terms. This is why, once drawn up by the Authorities that Plan ought to be approved by Parliament.

Such a study could, in my view, be achieved by year end, provided we start right away. Once completed, one could have a broad view of the extent of the reforms needed to be implemented and the financing required in order to start putting the National Development Plan into execution on the first of January 2016. This can be made possible provided a decision to start upon the study project, is reached within a few days. Time is getting short, and not one day should be lost from today, onward.

The country and the citizens both need a NATIONAL MEDIUM AND LONG TERM POLICY to guide the government and the people and stimulate them to achieve the goals included in these Policies. A country without a policy is like a ship without a rudder. This is how we have been going for the past seven decades and why we are in a mess today.

Kindly inform me if you are interested in taking part in that project which I propose to name:

“THE L.N.D.P. PROJECT"

19/07/2015

PART TWO   

Remarks on the L.N.D.P.

1.       1) It may not be catastrophic if the studies are not fully detailed by year end

2.        2)  What is essential is that the 18 sectors ought to be finished at the same time because they are all interdependent, and we need to have the entire financial picture in order to determine the overall financial requirements.

3.     3)   The essential goal is to start, because all the sector plans, in the end, will need to be adjusted in the course of execution

4

4.      4)  The setting of primary and subsidiary goals is essential

5.    5)  The system of follow up is also very important. The undergrads who assisted in building up the Plan ought to be assigned to share in the follow up function as well.

6.     6)  Contacts between the followers-up and the parliamentary commissions ought to be a permanent fixture of the project

7.     7)   Contacts between the followers-up and the  ministry staff ought to be also a permanent fixture of the project

8.     8)   A project magazine ought to be a priority. The magazine will publish the progress of the work

9.       Permanent contacts ought to be maintained between the followers-up, the ministry staff, the political parties, and the civil society organizations

1     9)    Political parties ought to be encouraged to get involved in the project

1   10) Monthly or quarterly reports ought to be submitted to the IMF and/or the WORLD BANK

1   11) Getting support and cooperation from the World Bank and the IMF would be the best way to counter any foreign hegemony.

PART THREE  - THE TIME SCHEDULE OF THE ELABORATION OF THE L.N.D.P.

PART FOUR - LNDP – THE GREEK DEBACLE
LET IT BE A LESSON TO THE LEBANESE SO THAT THEY DO NOT FALL INTO THE SAME TRAP

Greece’s Debt Crisis Explained

By THE NEW YORK TIMES UPDATED July 16, 2015

1.          What’s the latest?

Greece and its European creditors announced an agreement in Brussels on Monday that aims to resolve the country’s debt crisis and keep it in the eurozone, but that will require further budgetary belt-tightening that Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras could have trouble selling back in Athens.

The International Monetary Fund threatened to withdraw support for Greece’s bailout on Tuesday unless European leaders agree to substantial debt relief.

Greece's Parliament approved painful new austerity measures early Thursday.

2.          What happens next?

One open question is whether the deal gives enough confidence to theEuropean Central Bank to let it continue channeling sorely needed emergency funding to Greek banks.

As part of Greece’s commitments, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said, a fund will be created to use the proceeds from selling off assets owned by the Greek government to help pay down the country’s debt. That fund would be “to the tune of” €50 billion, she said.

Greece will also be required to seek assistance from the International Monetary Fund and to agree to let the organization continue to monitor the country’s adherence to its bailout commitments.

Despite the agreement, Greek banks are expected to remain closed this week. To reopen, the banks would need more emergency loans from the European Central Bank.

3.          How does the crisis affect the global financial system?

In the European Union, most real decision-making power, particularly on matters involving politically delicate things like money and migrants, rests with 28 national governments, each one beholden to its voters and taxpayers. This tension has grown only more acute since the January 1999 introduction of the euro, which now binds 19 nations into a single currency zone watched over by the European Central Bank but leaves budget and tax policy in the hands of each country, an arrangement that some economists believe was doomed from the start.

Since Greece’s debt crisis began in 2010, most international banks and foreign investors have sold their Greek bonds and other holdings, so they are no longer vulnerable to what happens in Greece. (Some private investors who subsequently plowed back into Greek bonds, betting on a comeback, regret that decision.)

And in the meantime, the other crisis countries in the eurozone, like Portugal, Ireland and Spain, have taken steps to overhaul their economies and are much less vulnerable to market contagion than they were a few years ago.

Debt in the European Union

Gross government debt as a percentage of gross domestic product plotted through the fourth quarter of 2014.

Source: Eurostat

4.          What if Greece left the eurozone?

At the height of the debt crisis a few years ago, many experts worried that Greece’s problems would spill over to the rest of the world. If Greece defaulted on its debt and exited the eurozone, they argued, it might create global financial shocks bigger than the collapse of Lehman Brothers did.

Now, however, some people believe that if Greece were to leave the currency union, in what is known as a “Grexit,” it wouldn’t be such a catastrophe. Europe has put up safeguards to limit the so-called financial contagion, in an effort to keep the problems from spreading to other countries. Greece, just a tiny part of the eurozone economy, could regain financial autonomy by leaving, these people contend — and the eurozone would actually be better off without a country that seems to constantly need its neighbors’ support.

Greece’s G.D.P. and Unemployment Rates in Europe

First quarter 2015 average; *Britain is the three-month average through February.

Source: Eurostat

Others say that’s too simplistic a view. Despite the frustration of endless negotiations, European political leaders see a united Europe as an imperative. At the same time, they still haven’t fixed some of the biggest shortcomings of the eurozone’s structure by creating a more federal-style system of transferring money as needed among members — the way the United States does among its various states.

Exiting the euro currency union and the European Union would also involve a legal minefield that no country has yet ventured to cross. There are also no provisions for departure, voluntary or forced, from the euro currency union.

5.                  3:52

A 2013 video on how Greeks were turning to dirty and environmentally damaging solutions for heat after the government raised taxes on heating oil by 450 percent.CreditVideo by Nikolia Apostolou on Publish DateFebruary 03, 2013

How did Greece get to this point?

Greece became the epicenter of Europe’s debt crisis after Wall Street imploded in 2008. With global financial markets still reeling, Greece announced in October 2009 that it had been understating its deficit figures for years, raising alarms about the soundness of Greek finances.

Suddenly, Greece was shut out from borrowing in the financial markets. By the spring of 2010, it was veering toward bankruptcy, which threatened to set off a new financial crisis.

To avert calamity, the so-called troika — the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank and the European Commission — issued the first of two international bailouts for Greece, which would eventually total more than 240 billion euros, or about $264 billion at today’s exchange rates.

The bailouts came with conditions. Lenders imposed harsh austerity terms, requiring deep budget cuts and steep tax increases. They also required Greece to overhaul its economy by streamlining the government, ending tax evasion and making Greece an easier place to do business.

6.                  Photo

A father and daughter at a demonstration in Athens in late June.CreditEirini Vourloumis for The New York Times

If Greece has received billions in bailouts, why is there still a crisis?

The money was supposed to buy Greece time to stabilize its finances and quell market fears that the euro union itself could break up. While it has helped, Greece’s economic problems haven’t gone away. The economy has shrunk by a quarter in five years, and unemployment is above 25 percent.

The bailout money mainly goes toward paying off Greece’s international loans, rather than making its way into the economy. And the government still has a staggering debt load that it cannot begin to pay down unless a recovery takes hold.

Many economists, and many Greeks, blame the austerity measures for much of the country’s continuing problems. The leftist Syriza party rode to power this year promising to renegotiate the bailout; Mr. Tsipras said that austerity had created a “humanitarian crisis” in Greece.

But the country’s exasperated creditors, especially Germany, blame Athens for failing to conduct the economic overhauls required under its bailout agreement. They don’t want to change the rules for Greece.

Greece’s Creditors

Almost two-thirds of Greece’s debt, about 200 billion euros, is owed to the eurozone bailout fund or other eurozone countries. Greece does not have to make any payments on that debt until 2023. The International Monetary Fund has proposed extending the grace period until mid-century.

So while Greece’s total debt is big—as much as double the country’s annual economic output—it might not matter much if the government did not need to make payments for decades to come. By the time the money came due, the Greek economy could have grown enough that the sum no longer seemed daunting.

In the short term, though, Greece has a problem making payments due on loans from the International Monetary Fund and on bonds held by the European Central Bank. Those obligations amount to more than 24 billion euros through the middle of 2018, and it is unlikely that either institution would agree to long delays in repayment.

THE LEBANESE PUBLIC DEBT AND THE GREEK DISASTER

THE LEBANESE PUBLIC DEBT AND ITS EVIL CONSEQUENCES

THE SEVENTY-FIVE BILLION DOLLARS QUESTION

May I be allowed to humbly point out that I discovered the power of shared information to transform the lives of the citizens and the governance of countries as early as March 2005 when I came back to Lebanon? Our NGO's motto was then "Inform before you Reform" to stress the value and the power of information in a democratic world.

Within a few months, my NGO completed the motto by adding: "and plan before you perform" to emphasize the absolute need for intelligent planning if a country was to succeed.

Open data is just the way to apply these basic and essential principles. I fully agree that it can revolutionize the nature of the relations among the citizens of a specific country, between the citizens and their leaders, and between several countries in a specific region.

 That is why I have kept calling for my ideas to be adopted in Lebanon in spite of a deadly campaign orchestrated against me and my NGO: "CPI The Lebanese Centre for Public Information", by the "powers at be" who had a "program “of their own, and for whom transparency and free information were anathema because they were bound to reveal their evil plan to “hijack" Lebanon.

 So far these "traitors" have succeeded in the first part of their PLAN.  Over the past ten years they managed to literally "grow" Lebanon's debt from $33 billion in 2005 to $75 billion today. At the same time they also successfully blocked, through their cronies in parliament and the Administration,  the implementation of any reforms in the country that were likely to prevent the realization of their evil scheme.

 None of the programs that were set up in the Agriculture, the Industry, the Environment, the Education, the Electricity, the Water, and the Tourism Plans were ever allowed to be executed because that was likely to put an end to their evil ambitions.

The growth of the Debt and the prevention of reforms were two faces of the same Machiavelli program. It consisted in bringing the country to its knees and then offering to rescue it by "privatization". In other words, lay their hands on the vital assets of the country: Electricity, Water, the Port, the Airport, and maybe the nascent oil and gas industry, in compensation for the redemption of a DEBT that they had, themselves, knowingly and “wittingly" contributed to build up.

 Oddly enough, it is almost, a “copie conforme” of what took place in neighbouring Greece, with the results that we are witnessing today.  So far, the story ends here. The real question remains: "Do we keep on executing that evil plot or do we stop, and "plan" for a better and socially fairer Lebanon?  THAT IS THE $75 BILLION QUESTION.

 WHY IS NOBODY INTEREST IN THE DEBT?

1. In 2006 we had the chance to repay the debt within thirteen years, by 2018. We did not need, had we promptly acted at the time, to mortgage any of our oil or gas revenue to do so. All we had to do, was to introduce and implement some essential reforms that should have included a 2% reduction in the rate of interest on the public bonds. That rate currently still stands at an average of 6.5%.

2. Now, nine years later, the conditions have changed. If we decide to start implementing the same reforms as from the first of January 2016, we shall need to wait  seventeen years, until 2032, to pay up our debt. But we shall need also to mortgage our future gas and oil revenue to the extent of one hundred billion dollars, starting from 2023 until 2032.

3. The more we procrastinate, the costlier and the longer it will take us to get rid of this damned Debt. 

4. Will somebody among our economists and our financial experts finally wake up to reality? I am really considering appealing to some foreign experts to drill some sense into their heads, before it gets too late for all of us. The Greek drama is not enough for us to teach us a lesson?

GREXIT OR NO GREXIT?

13/07/2015
               http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/12/eurozone-crisis-which-countries-are-for-or-against-grexit

A.- Open to Grexit

1. GERMANY: Angela Merkel has long sought to avoid going down in history as the German chancellor who presided over the breakup of the eurozone. But her government and many centre-right MPs are not convinced that Greece has done enough to justify a new three-year bailout.

2. AUSTRIA: Austria has been consistently downbeat about the prospects for an agreement with Greece and thinks the risks of broader contagion to the rest of the eurozone from an exit are limited.

3. THE NETHERLANDS: The Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte, is a close ally of Merkel and wants Greece to come up with far-reaching reforms, otherwise “it will be over quickly”.

4. BELGIUM: Although a champion of EU integration, Belgium’s centre-right government is worried the eurozone’s credibility would be damaged if agreements with Greece were changed.

5. FINLAND: The nationalist Finns party has threatened to pull out of the ruling coalition and topple Finland’s two-month old government if the country agrees to a third Greek bailout.

6. SLOVAKIA: An amicable split between Athens and its eurozone partners would be better than allowing Greece or the entire currency bloc to turn into a zombie state, argues Peter Kažimír, Slovakia’s finance minister.

7. LITHUANIA: Lithuania is the newest entrant to the eurozone and one of Greece’s harshest critics. The president, Dalia Grybauskaitė, has said Greece’s proposals are insufficient and BASED ON OUTDATED INFORMATION.

8. LATVIA: The Latvian prime minister, Laimdota Straujuma, insists she will not sign up to any agreement that means writing down the value of Greece’s debts, while the head of Latvia’s central bank thinks Greece has already “voted itself out of the eurozone”.

9. MALTA: “We need a solution but not at any cost,” the prime minister, Joseph Muscat, has said. Malta is against reducing Greece’s overall debt burden, but is prepared to make repayment terms more flexible.

B.- Wavering, but prefer to avoid Grexit

10. PORTUGAL: Portugal went through three years of painful austerity in exchange for a €78bn bailout. Although not in favour of Grexit, its liberal-conservative government opposes debt relief for Greece, arguing that Athens should get its house in order.

11. IRELAND: The taoiseach, Enda Kenny, has urged fellow European leaders to look at the bigger picture. But Ireland has swallowed its own bitter austerity medicine and is keen to ensure Greece does not get a no-strings bailout.

12. CYPRUS: With memories of its own chaotic €10bn bailout in 2013 still fresh, Cyprus hopes Greece will stay in the eurozone, but would like to see further reforms.

13. SLOVENIA: Slovenia would like Greece to remain in the eurozone, but would like to see Athens sign up to verifiable reform measures to regain trust.

14. ESTONIA: Along with its Baltic neighbours, Estonia has also taken a tough line with Greece. But Estonia’s president, Toomas Hendrik Ilves, has warned that a Greekdefault could cost poorer eurozone members 4.2% of their GDP.

C,- Anything to avoid Grexit

15. FRANCE: At the 11th hour of the debt crisis, France became Greece’s champion. The French president, François Hollande, is determined to strike a deal and thinks Europe’s future is at stake.

16. ITALY: The Italian prime minister, Matteo Renzi, is determined to keep Greece in the eurozone and stop the “humiliation” of a European partner that has given up so much already. “Enough is enough” is the message he wants to convey to Germany.

17. SPAIN: Madrid thinks keeping Greece in the euro is vital, but the centre-right government in Madrid will not want to make conditions too easy on Athens for fear of boosting the anti-austerity Podemos party.

18. LUXEMBOURG: Always a stalwart of European integration, Luxembourg argues that Germany has a responsibility to prevent Grexit. The foreign minister, Jean Asselborn, has said Grexit would trigger a deep conflict between Germany and France, which would be a catastrophe for Europe.

D.- MY CONCLUSIONS

SO, MY FRIENDS, AFTER THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION OF THE OPINIONS OF 18 MEMBERS OF THE EU REGARDING THE GREEK CASE, WHAT CONCLUSIONS WOULD YOU BE LIKELY TO DRAW?

LET ME SHARE MY OWN VIEWS WITH YOU AND SAY THAT I AM NOT, PERSONALLY, FOR ANYTHING TO AVOID GREXIT, THOUGH, I AM ALSO AGAINST FORCING GREECE TO BLINDLY ACCEPT THE CURRENT UNJUSTIFIABLY HARSH CONDITIONS THAT ARE BEING IMPOSED UPON THIS COUNTRY.

I BELIEVE, AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY MENTIONED  IN MY PREVIOUS POSTS,  THAT GREECE OUGHT TO BE GIVEN A SIX MONTHS “MORATORIUM” PERIOD TO PREPARE A THOROUGH AND FULLY DETAILED "REFORM PLAN" OF HOW IT INTENDS TO SOLVE THAT EQUATION. GREECE OUGHT TO PRESENT THAT PLAN INTO ITS MINUTEST DETAILS. THAT IS WHY IT REQUIRES THE SIX MONTHS PAUSE.

HOWEVER, TO PROVE THAT THIS REQUEST IS NOT JUST SOME DELAYING TACTIC,
THE GREEK LEADERS SHOULD ALSO BE REQUIRED TO PRESENT TO THEIR CREDITORS, AT THE END OF EVERY MONTH, A DETAILED REPORT OF THE PROGRESS OF THE PLAN’S ELABORATION PROJECT, IN ALL ITS PHASES.

FURTHERMORE, THE PLAN’S BROAD LINES OUGHT TO BE PRE-APPROVED INITIALLY BY THE CREDITORS. THIS PARTICULAR CONDITION SHOULD ENSURE THAT THE GREEK REQUEST IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A SIMPLE DELAYING TACTIC.

BY THE WAY, PLEASE NOTE THAT MY PROPOSALS ANSWER LITHUANIA’S OBJECTION (see 7 above).

13/07/2015

GREECE AND LEBANON – TWO COUNTRIES ON THE SAME PATH TO SELF-DESTRUCTION

Greek debt currently stands at around 320 billion euros ($357 billion) — a staggering 180 percent or so of the country's annual gross domestic product. Few economists think that debt will ever be fully repaid. Last week, the International Monetary Fund said Greece's debt will need to be restructured.

Our Debt, in Lebanon currently stands at $75 billion - a staggering 166 per cent of our GDP, not far from Greece’s current percentage.

However, the difference is that we do not have a European Union to give us a helping hand to prevent an eventual collapse.

But, what is worse, our creditors are not forcing upon us the need for REFORMS which we have not even attempted to introduce during the past 22 years.

If we keep going “SILLY, ”the way we are doing today, our Debt will undoubtedly be $121 billion (268% of GDP) in less than seven years, and $248 billion (551% of GDP) in 2031. But we shall never reach that state because, long before that, Lebanon, as we know it today, would have ceased to exist.

 So, in order to please the Lebanese who do not like our flag and would like to see, instead, the Iranian or the Saudi flag floating over Parliament House, I suggest we do nothing and let time accomplish its destructive work.

La Commission parlementaire des Finances et du Budget

10/07/2015

LA COMMISSION PARLEMENTAIRE DES FINANCES ET DU BUDGET

Serge, j'aimerais aborder un sujet délicat, surtout dans les circonstances présentes. Mais je sens que je suis tenu de le faire. Le système politique que nous vivons a l'heure actuelle au Liban, malgres toutes ses imperfections, contient certains "garde-fous" qui auraient pu servir, mais ont été sciemment ignores. 

Savez-vous qu'il existe une "institution" representant les citoyens qui est en charge de veiller à leurs intérêts et qui aurait pu nous éviter beaucoup de problèmes durant ces dix dernières années? On la mentionne très rarement, et pour cause. Cette institution c'est la Commission parlementaire des Finances et du Budget.

 C'est elle qui est chargée de défendre les intérêts des citoyens. C'est elle qui, théoriquement du moins, peut exiger d'éplucher les comptes publics et de "surveiller" la "stratégie financiere" de l'Etat ou, tout au moins, de s'assurer qu'elle existe. 

Or, pour des raisons que j'ignore, cette Commission n'a jamais voulu tenir de véritable dialogue avec ceux qu'elle est censée représenter, c'est à dire les citoyens. Si ceci avait été le cas, nous aurions pu, des 2006, lui demander de mettre cartes sur tables et exiger d'eux de véritables "REPONSES" à nos questions.

 Je me blâme de n'avoir pas use d'une telle approche plus souvent, a l'époque, espérant toujours pouvoir convaincre directement les "responsable". La vérité, c'est qu'il fallait s'adresser aux véritables "responsables", nos représentants au Parlement. (LA COMMISSION). Mais tout n'est pas encore perdu. Pourquoi ne pas tenter de le faire à présent, plutôt qu'utiliser le "blocage" qui ne sert qu'à nous enliser dans la m...... plus profondément?

A ce propos, je tiens a ajouter, aux remarques ci-dessus, une reference a une declaration du President de la Commission des Finances et du Budget datee du 15 Juillet 2014, dans laquelle il se plaint d'obstructions et de blocages.http://www.nna-leb.gov.lb/fr/show-news/29846/La-commission-parlementaire-des-Finances-ne-tient-pas-sa-s%E9ance-faute-de-quorum

MP Ibrahim Kanaan y declarait: 

ANI - La commission parlementaire des Finances et du Budget n'a pas tenu, ce mardi, sa séance qui était prévue au Parlement, pour défaut de quorum.

Le président de la commission, le député Ibrahim Kanaan, a indiqué qu'il compte déposer une plainte auprès de la présidence de la Chambre, refusant "le blocage du travail des commissions parlementaires sous n'importe quel prétexte".

"La séance avortée était consacrée à l'approbation de trois projets de lois, deux d'entre eux liés à l'Université Libanaise et à la réhabilitation de certains bâtiments à Tripoli et dans d'autres régions", a-t-il assuré.

Ce qui serait bon pour le Liban pourrait l' etre aussi pour la Grece

08/07/2015

UNE SOLUTION A ENVISAGER POUR LA GRECE, DANS L’OPTIQUE DU CAS LIBANAIS

Permettez-moi de declarer, au debut de cette presentation, tout l'estime et toute l' admiration que je voue a la Presidente du Fonds Monetaire International, pour la maniere dont elle gere cette entreprise universelle qui est essentielle pour la stabilite internationale.

Les vues qu'elle a experimees au cours de sa declarations du  1/7/2015, dont j' ai eu l' honneur de recevoir une copie a travers son tweet , m'ont rempli d' admiration pour la clarte et l' audace de son jugement: 
http://a-planneddevelopment.blogspot.com/2015/06/01072015-message-from-managing-director.html 

Le fait que la Presidente de la plus importante institution financiere du monde  declare, a deux reprises, qu' accorder trop d' importance a l' aspect financier d' un probleme national, au detriment de la croissance de son economie et de la justice sociale, a renforce ma confiance dans les institutions internationales.

Suite a cette mise au point, je voudrais me permettre de presenter à Madame Christine Lagarde, Présidente du Fond Monétaire International, certaines suggestions pour envisager la résolution du problème Grec, dans la même optique que le problème Libanais. Je sais que je ne suis qu' un simple expert comptable Libanais,mais peut-etre que l' affection extreme que je voue a mon pays, les etudes poussees de l' economie Libanaise que j'ai entrepris au cours des dix dernieres annees, me permettent d' exprimer mon opinion sur un probleme qui me semble commun, a la fois au peuple Grec et au peuple Libanais. Une telle consideration m' a pousse a presenter les suggestions suivantes pour essayer de les resoudre, tous deux, selon la meme approche.

  Le problème Grec (considerations generales) :

Avant de lancer des ultimatums et de réclamer aux dirigeants grecs de présenter, dans un délai beaucoup trop court, un programme insuffisamment étudié qu’ils seraient incapables d’exécuter, j’estime qu'il serait utile de leur accorder une période de grâce pour étudier TOUTES les reformes requises et déterminer quels serait l’aide financière nécessaire dont les grecs auraient besoin afin de les appliquer efficacement.

Certains sujets doivent faire l’objet d’études sérieuses et poussées afin de déterminer l’envergure exacte des reformes à appliquer et les résultats éventuels qui pourraient être obtenus. Je cite entre autres :

1)      Investiguer certains domaines sensibles, tels que les biens de l’Eglise Greque et identifier les issues specifiques dont la solution permettrait de resoudre, a terme, le problème financier de l’Etat Grec

2)      Investiguer le domaine des armateurs qui eux aussi  devraient etre en mesure de contribuer a l' assainissement des finances nationales grecques.

3)   Investiguer d’autres problèmes qui resteraient  à identifier au cours des recherches prévues, à cet effet.

 Le problème Grec (considerations particulieres) 

2.   A.- Comment aborder le probleme grec

1)     Prendre en consideration les neuf questions qu’il serait susceptible de poser au cours des études à entreprendre (voir tableau 1)

2)      Etudier minutieusement les circonstances prevalant dans chacun des 18 secteurs importants (dans le cas du Liban). Il y en aurait probablement plus pour la Grèce (voir tableau 2)

3)      L’objectif de cet exercice serait de déterminer et d’évaluer aussi précisément que possible les reformes à engranger

4)      Sur base de cette étude, les besoins financiers essentiels de la Grèce pourraient, de la sorte être déterminés avec precision.

5)      C’est uniquement, à la conclusion de cette étude, que des propositions sérieuses de remboursement des prêts sont susceptibles d’être présentées aux créditeurs, selon un programme calendrier qui resterait à établir.

6)      Toute cette étude devrait occuper, environ, six mois.

7)     Durant cette période des facilités nécessaires minimum devraient être consenties à la Grèce, à condition que les grecs s’engagent à fournir, chaque fin de mois, un état de l’avancement des travaux.

8)      Au bout de six mois il serait possible d’établir un programme rationnel de remboursement des créances, et les dates d’échéance.

3.      B.-  Qui doit entreprendre cette étude ?

1)      Des représentants de la Société civile

2)      Des étudiants en sciences politiques

3)      Des économistes réputés (grecs et étrangers)

4)      Des « stakeholders »de tous les secteurs concernes

5)      Des représentants des Banques créditrices

6)      Des représentants des divers ministères  publics que la crise concerne

7)      Des représentants des institutions gouvernementales grecques

4.       C.- Certains avantages manifestes d’une telle approche

1)      Les décisions qui seraient prises, à la conclusion de cette étude, quelles que soit leur nature, auraient le mérite d’être plus appropriées et mieux étudiées.

2)      Mais surtout, les études seraient entreprises avec la participation de la société civile, ce qui serait susceptible d’amener, à la solution du problème, plus de justice, plus d’actualité, et plus de transparence.

3)      Les six mois de grâce qui seraient, de la sorte, accordes a la Grèce, permettraient d’envisager une solution équitable du problème  et éviteraient des échecs ultérieurs qui pourraient se révéler catastrophiques.