By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The head of the European Payments Initiative (EPI) believes Europe is too reliant on international payment companies like Visa and Mastercard, which dominate Eurozone card transactions. This dependency raises concerns among EU officials, particularly as cash use declines, about the potential for these American companies’ power to be “weaponized.” To counter this, the EPI introduced Wero, a pan-European payment solution aiming to expand cross-border capabilities, while the European Central Bank is also exploring a digital euro as a means to enhance autonomy and security.
Read the original article here
The call for European alternatives to the dominant Visa and Mastercard payment systems is gaining significant traction, reflecting a growing recognition of the need for greater financial independence and resilience within the European Union. This isn’t a new revelation, but rather a persistent issue that Europe has, it seems, continually found itself on the brink of addressing before taking decisive action. The importance of secure and independent digital infrastructure, including payment systems, alongside military and energy security, has been underscored for years, with experts highlighting these vulnerabilities long before they became critical.
The reliance on foreign payment networks presents a strategic vulnerability, as exemplified by the experience of India, which successfully developed its indigenous payment systems like UPI and RuPay as a direct counter to the duopoly. This move, which Visa and Mastercard reportedly protested, underscores the potential for self-sufficiency and the strategic necessity of reducing dependence on external systems, especially when geopolitical tensions and potential sanctions are a consideration. The underlying sentiment is that preparation for independence should precede the moment of necessity, not be sought only when it’s critically needed.
The influence of consultants, often characterized as salespeople rather than independent experts, has been a point of contention. Their persuasive arguments have, at times, seemingly delayed or obstructed the adoption of crucial infrastructure projects by convincing stakeholders that problems were less severe than they were. The argument here is that decisions should be guided by genuine, independent expertise rather than the sweet talk of those whose primary goal might be to maintain the status quo or secure lucrative contracts. True leadership, it’s suggested, involves listening to experts before engaging with consultants for implementation.
The emergence of initiatives like the Digital Euro and other domestic payment solutions within Europe are seen as positive steps toward greater sovereignty. The principle is that increased competition, provided it is not a government-run system designed for surveillance, is ultimately beneficial for consumers and businesses alike. The idea of exploring existing alternatives like American Express or even international systems such as Brazil’s Pix is being floated as avenues for expanding choice and fostering a more diverse payment landscape.
The current global economic and political climate highlights the fragility of relying too heavily on systems controlled by a single, foreign entity. Concerns about potential sanctions and the weaponization of financial infrastructure are driving the urgency for Europe to solidify its own payment ecosystem. The experience of other nations demonstrating successful implementation of their own payment networks serves as a compelling model for the EU to follow.
There’s a palpable frustration that Europe often waits until it’s “on the edge” before acting, particularly when it comes to critical infrastructure like payment systems. The warnings from experts have been persistent, yet action has been slow, often attributed to the influence of those who benefited from the existing, foreign-dominated structures. The argument for developing robust domestic payment infrastructure is fundamentally about strategic autonomy and ensuring that financial flows are not subject to external control or disruption.
The discussion also touches upon the broader theme of decoupling from the United States, which is seen by some as an inevitable and necessary consequence of shifting global dynamics. This decoupling is not just about financial systems but encompasses broader areas like digital and military infrastructure. The hope is that a stronger, independent European financial system will not only serve the EU’s interests but could even have positive repercussions for the US economy by reducing lobbying efforts that protect the existing duopoly.
The conversation also raises questions about trust and surveillance. While Visa and Mastercard already collect significant data on consumer behavior, the concern is amplified when it comes to government-controlled systems. However, the counter-argument is that corporations and governments can both access information, and the primary motivation for developing domestic systems is often to avoid sanctions and maintain control over financial transactions, particularly in a world where such tools can be used for geopolitical leverage.
Ultimately, the call for Visa and Mastercard alternatives in the EU is a multifaceted issue driven by a desire for strategic independence, economic resilience, and a more competitive payment landscape. It’s a recognition that relying on foreign infrastructure, however convenient it may seem, carries inherent risks that can no longer be ignored. The challenge lies in translating this growing awareness into swift and effective action, drawing lessons from successful initiatives elsewhere and prioritizing genuine expertise over superficial consultation.