Translation of "Krisenländer" in English

The second path drives many debtors in crisis countries into bankruptcy.

Should the countries in crisis leave the Eurozone?

Nevertheless, the European crisis countries still have considerable room for improvement.

The countries that were in crisis (Brazil and Russia) are gradually recovering.

Brussels wants to ease the burden of the crisis states by resettling refugees.

For the former crisis countries, this means further reducing the legacy burden of the crisis.

The now-troubled countries were the recipients of the capital mobilised by the euro.

Meanwhile the crisis countries are still struggling with high unemployment and sovereign debt.

Is higher unemployment an inevitable consequence for countries under stress that wish to improve their competitiveness?

Europe's crisis-stricken countries are introducing harsh austerity measures to reduce their debts.

Many of these crisis-torn countries are caught in a liquidity trap from which only an injection of funds can extricate them.

The low confidence in banks in the distressed countries has caused private capital inflows to dry up or even reverse.

Since 2017, the Federal Foreign Office has been promoting the expansion of the project to seven African countries experiencing conflict and crises.

And this admonition refers expressly, and quite rightly, not just to the former crisis countries.

Only a price reduction would create current-account surpluses and enable the crisis countries to pay off their foreign debts.

In the current debt crisis, the no bail-out clause has been scrapped and replaced by a huge safety net for countries hit by crisis.

In contrast, over the last decade, the euro area's crisis countries in particular have experienced a decline in their competitiveness on international markets.

Finally, the eurozone's former crisis countries are now clearly over the worst.

But the plans to create an Economic Security Council, to invest the IMF's Interim Committee with decision-making powers, or even to call upon private capital for emergency loans - together with the IMF - for countries affected by crises, will not only fail to solve the problem but also result in further restriction of the sovereign rights of the borrowing countries, the imposition of stricter austerity programmes on their peoples, and the creation of overcentralised structures with no accountability over the heads of national and regional authorities.

As I said earlier, the Commission is watching closely to ensure that the countries involved in the crisis respect the conditions laid down by the International Monetary Fund and, more specifically, the conditions relating to structural reforms and the relations between industry and the Korean Government.

In particular, the Target2 credit drawn by the crisis-afflicted countries’ central banks, which already totals almost €1 trillion, should also be taken into consideration.

That question is all the more important, because the Netherlands and Austria, two of Germany’s Northern European eurozone neighbors, continue to run current-account surpluses, while the Southern European crisis countries have reversed their previously large deficits, as austerity has squeezed domestic demand and made room for an increase in exports.

With several banks in the crisis countries on the verge of bankruptcy, many of these loans have now turned toxic.

Indeed, the national central banks’ allocation of emergency liquidity assistance required approval by only one-third of the Governing Council’s members, and the six crisis countries had these votes.