ECO,  "STRICT FINANCIAL GUARANTOR" AND REDENOMINATION RISK

This bill is surprisingly of poor quality due to a lack of contextualization. It uses an authoritative argument to perpetuate the subordination of African Franc Zone Countries (AFZC) and ignores Africa's experience in regional integration. There is only haste and nervousness in its preparation. Precipitation, because the economists maneuvering had the ECB's conclusions in mind, given their proximity to the authors of the review it has just carried out.

Nervousness, when the dreaded accident occurs in real time. This is undoubtedly the reason for the call to the community of economists and other members of the Vox network to set up a commission of experts on major economic challenges. The reaction of its President confirms the scale of the urgency when he states that "the great danger would be to forget the future of France and Europe in the response to the crisis". It merely confirms the warning issued in 1931 by Paul Valéry and taken up by Pierre Schaeffer in 1970 as if these two players were still going backwards into the future. To put it another way, taking inspiration from this speech on Africa held in November 2017, "the problem of France and Europe is that the French and Europeans have not yet entered the future enough! ».

The formulation of the bill is based on an authoritative argument motivated by the idea that West Africa does not meet the criteria for an Optimal Monetary Zone (OMZ), that a fixed exchange rate is necessary for the CFA zone and that the independence of the monetary policy of central banks is compatible with the free movement of capital. Hence the need for a financial guarantor and a fixed anchor for the Eco. Even laymen in international finance economics know that the MTA is just another name for the dollar zone.  To take refuge behind this argument is to sanctify this zone and to erect a barrier to the appearance of any other monetary union, including in Europe.

The US currency determines the entire global financial cycle through the value of the VIX, as evidenced by the historic peak it reached in 2006, heralding the Great Recession, and that of 2020 has just been surpassed. This index is at the heart of the volatility targeting strategies of hedge funds with a majority of American and European investors, which condemn developing or emerging countries to permanent financial fragility through capital flight and debt savings.

The desire to preserve the status quo in Africa is therefore the best indicator of France's downgrading at the beginning of the 21st century to the point of being assimilated only to these "lone warriors", to use the terminology of the "EU's Global Strategy for Foreign and Security Policy" presented in July 2016 to the leaders of the European Union. Yet the warning was very clear and the target obvious.
The Council of State and/or the French Constitutional Council would do itself credit by rejecting the bill. All those who are committed to the rule of law must express their indignation at this unbridled expression of the negativity bias. They would thus go down in history by putting an end to the entrenched colonial obsession and permanent violence against Africa.
In any event, the confirmation of this position by anybody whatsoever, in Africa or elsewhere, constitutes a violation of amended article 64 of the WAEMU Treaty.
.

A careful reading of the bill reveals a new hierarchy of norms that is unacceptable to WAMU. It effectively excludes any rapprochement with Nigeria and Ghana. It raises a new barrier to deepening through economic and political integration. It is difficult to do better to fragment the continent when the target is less WAEMU and ECOWAS than the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). The African Union has an obligation to call on the stakeholders - including the European Union - to put this imbroglio back in order. It should take the opportunity to reconcile them by imposing greater transparency in the analysis of both the continental challenge and the regional agenda. 
In so doing, it could put an end to the fixed structure of the Regional Economic Communities (RECs) with a view to reducing their number in the perspective of deepening the AfCFTA. The decision to limit their number to 8 was taken in haste at the Banjul Summit in 2006 in reaction to the benchmarking exercise in the context of the implementation of NEPAD initiatives. Because that exercise propelled WAEMU to the top spot confirming the ranking achieved by the United Nations Commission for Africa, it was necessary to block at all costs any prospect of deepening regional integration from that organization. This decision had only disastrous consequences, as it resulted in a lost decade for regional integration. The major powers have exploited this linguistic dispute to hijack the Initiative for the Development of the RECs after celebrating it at the 2007 G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany. Having, to everyone's surprise, decided to entrust the steering of regional integration to the World Bank, they ended up abandoning everything in 2010, under the pretext of misunderstandings, difficulties and leadership problems.  The European Union (EU) took the opportunity to freeze its support to the RECs for non-signature of the Economic Partnership Agreements, thus putting an end to all forms of support. However, this did not prevent EU member countries from attacking the most successful regional organizations to delimit their territory.

No other bank in the Eurozone is a candidate for the takeover since the announcement of the sale of these assets, even at the symbolic price of one euro. Unless there is massive support, the story of Lehmann Brothers will repeat itself this time from Europe. Meanwhile, the member countries are fighting over the last zero 0 of the amount of the financial package of the recovery plan, the "Club Med" countries wanting to add one to match the USA, the "Frugal Countries" persisting in withdrawing one so as not to give a bonus to laxity. The rest is easy to guess, less in the form of a scenario than a chain of causes and effects: a boost from the US and the fracture within the Eurozone between the poorly endowed countries (Club Med) and the countries exposed to British appetites becomes gaping, the latter resolving to join its free trade area.

The milestones set for Nigeria (the Naira is quoted on the London Stock Exchange), the downgrading of the ratings of other regional powers such as South Africa, and the procrastination on the cancellation of African debt make these countries receptive to any proposal for a paradigm shift as long as it holds out the prospect of a massive influx of capital on the condition of privatizing the management of public infrastructure in order to supposedly improve access and availability and thus reduce poverty and inequality. Disillusionment could then be cruel: whoever liked the advent of the debt economy that literally dried up the continent in the 1970s will love the breastfeeding society once all Africa's resources are privatized in less time than it would have taken to negotiate a debt moratorium to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic.

The history of Africa is a never-ending repetition, sometimes as a farce and sometimes as a tragedy. All these episodes and many other twists and turns underline the importance of not giving in to the sorcerer's apprentices who are the bearers of excessive financialization and to the predators who are constantly stirring up linguistic or leadership conflicts to slow down continental economic, monetary and political integration. The context of the Covid-19 pandemic and the current global financial crisis lends itself to this.