At a recent EUROPE-FUTURE-FORUM in Warsaw - organized by Visegrad Insight and Res Publica - experts from different countries and professional fields discussed the most urgent issues Europe must deal with. These issues are many and they are not easy to tackle. They would demand a full concentration of - basically united - decision-makers in Brussels and the different national capitals. The question is if they are willing and able to find some common lines and the resources to tackle the issues Europe is confronted with.
It is obvious that Europe, while still in an incomplete unification process, must face many external and internal challenges. Maybe that is not new. But with a war on European soil started by Russia against one of its neighbors and given rising right-wing, anti-European forces, which are even sometimes close friends of Putin’s Russia, there is a new quality of challenges. These forces are attacking the very fundamentals of the European Union. A diverse and often disunited Union which in addition shows economic weakness, especially in comparison to the economic development of the United States and China, has difficulties to defend itself.
Economic deficiencies become visible
This last aspect has been underlined by two reports requested by and recently presented to the European Commission - the LETTA report on the development of the single market and the DRAGHI report on competitiveness. The latter report is frank when it states: “If Europe cannot become more productive, we will be forced to choose. We will not be able to become at once, a leader in new technologies, a beacon of climate responsibility and an independent player on the world stage. We will not be able to finance our social model. We will have to scale back some, if not all, of our ambitions.”
Very often this economic basis for the European social model, but also the global impact of the European Union, is forgotten and neglected. Now, it is not a way out to imitate the US or China economic and social policies model. But a European mixture of stronger public and private investment into research and innovation is necessary to create a sound basis for keeping the European social model alive while developing more influential global strategies including strengthening military defense.
More public and private investment needed
In this respect, Europe would need to have a budget that would give the necessary support to at least a partial implementation of the measures proposed by the Draghi report. But it must be feared that the negotiations of the forthcoming MFF - the multi-annual financial framework - will show much resistance from member states against the necessary increase of public European spending. Rather we will see the contrary, as there are strong right-wing forces on the national and European levels demanding cuts to the anyway very small EU Budget.
It is evident, that not only public investment is needed to enhance economic growth, but also private investment. Here again, we see many weaknesses in comparison, especially to the US capital market. The formation of a common European capital market which would improve the conditions for financing European innovations and start-ups did not make much progress, it is long overdue.
Regulations contested
Another issue raised in the Draghi report, but also at the Warsaw meeting, is the quality of regulations. Criticizing the regulations proposed by the European Commission and decided by the European Parliament and the Council has become very popular. Certainly we have regulations that are hampering innovation but we also have areas where we do not have enough European regulations, for example concerning the trans-European railway traffic, but also concerning defense. In these cases, the absence of European regulations leads to a lack of investments due to uncertainty. In addition, we often encounter national regulations that continue to exist alongside European ones, creating an unnecessary burden for companies and citizens.
If Europe takes its climate policies and goals seriously, it must establish a regulatory framework for investments. Anyone observing the disastrous climate changes must agree that it's not just about growth itself, but about pursuing a growth path that aligns with climate goals. Nevertheless, some room for maneuvering should be kept, without endangering the necessary green electrification of our economies and the transport sector.
Certainly, we need to concentrate on the quality of regulations and not the quantity of rules. First and foremost, they must have the desired impact, and they should also generate and enhance innovation. We need more extensive and more comprehensive impact assessments to support such a strategy. Such impact assessments are particularly important to screen European expenditures. Very often, citizens are skeptical about money spent by the European Union. Supporting the European Union and especially its budget demands more transparency and scrutiny of EU’s expenditures would be necessary.
Increased defense expenditure
An item that will not require a large amount from the EU budget but will be viewed critically is the overall European defense spending war led by Russia against Ukraine, along with threats to expand beyond its borders, made it necessary to increase defense expenditures after years of reducing them as a percentage of GDP. Unfortunately, the dividend peace that many European countries gained after the breakdown of the Soviet Union will be consumed by increasing defense budgets. However, procurement in the field of defense is very often untransparent and offers opportunities for corruption. On the other hand, Europe would need a stronger defense industry in order not to rely too much on US defense equipment.
There are two key tasks in this regard: first, to develop a European defense industry by integrating various national defense industries while addressing their limitations and prerogatives; and second, to ensure maximum transparency to prevent corruption and excessive expenditure. Additionally, European defense policies should not only focus on strengthening a common procurement policy but also on enhancing military cooperation to avoid unnecessary overspending. Comparing defense spending with the US and Russia, it is obvious that the decisive issue is not that Europe spends a small amount, but the lack of efficient spending due to the resistance of national politicians and military forces to coordinate and finally unite their efforts. And without violating its neutrality, countries like Austria within the EU, and Switzerland outside the EU, can cooperate to be better prepared in the case of an attack from outside the European Union.
Security is more than defense
Defense will certainly play a bigger role in the European Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. But if such a policy should have an impact beyond Europe, the EU’s security policy must include much more than defending a European country against Russian aggression. Concerning the rest of the world, particularly the Global South, the conflict in Gaza and the Middle East requires more sincere attention. The long-term weak and inconsistent position of Europe fails to gain worldwide understanding and support; on the contrary, the EU’s declarations and actions avoid condemning all violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, regardless of who commits the horrific actions of Europe in the past cannot justify a morally and legally unacceptable position or a blind eye today, especially when we consider the events unfolding in the Middle East. If we have a one-sided attitude towards different war parties in the Middle East, we will not find partners in our efforts to save and revitalize multinational organizations and activities. Respect for basic human rights and the development of strategies for peaceful conflict resolution must guide European foreign and security policyEurope’s past crimes cannot justify a neglect for today’s crimes wherever and by whoever they are committed.
Enlargement as a geopolitical act
The European Union and some of its leading politicians are known for many unfulfilled promises. That concerns especially the many promises to the countries of the Western Balkans. Despite the Balkan countries themselves often not fulfilling their reform promises, the EU has showed no strong willingness to invite these to the way of accession to the Union. With the war against Ukraine and threats against Moldavia, the enlargement issue got a new momentum. As both countries were nominated as candidates to join the EU, the countries of the Western Balkans could not be excluded from the determination of the EU to become more complete. All European countries should be protected from Russian- and maybe Chinese - pressures. That comprehensive strategy also comprises Georgia, but the Georgian government seems to rather prefer the Russian over the European Union path.
Despite new and reiterated promises, it is not yet clear which specific impact on the Union’s policies - including the long-term budget planning - these promises will have. Too many obstacles—ranging from the threat of referenda in member countries before the accession of new nations to a lack of financial commitments—will slow down or even derail the enlargement process. Consequently, the right-wing populists and President Putin will be happy, that again the enlargement train will be derailed. Of course, it would be naive to pursue a quick and complete accession for all candidate countries. However, enough models of staged accession and phasing into different areas of EU policies have been developed to organize a realistic and acceptable integration process before the countries concerned may become full-fledged members of the European Union.
Migration as a chance and as a threat
In a recent article in the New York Times, Thomas L. Friedman highlighted that many innovations in the USA – including those in the field of Artificial Intelligence - have been developed predominantly by immigrants. Not all immigrants are innovators, but a great deal of them are indispensable for a successfully functioning economic and social system. Contrary to this fact, right-wing populists and extremists define immigration to Europe as a threat to our culture and well-being. Certainly, strong migration poses challenges, especially for housing and the educational system, challenges which have often been neglected. The most critical issue, however, is the import of radicalism and violence, which exacerbate the homegrown radicalism and can even interact with it. This is the real issue that must be addressed: radicalism, not immigration itself.
The existence of several violent attacks by extremist fundamentalists and the pressure from the extreme right push politicians of the center in several countries to violate basic principles of human rights and European law. One of the major successes of the European Union was the establishment of a common Schengen border, which enhances the ability for free travel and the easy exchange of goods and services. However, this is increasingly threatened actions of different national governments. Instead of implementing efficient controls at the common outside border of the Schengen area enforcing, or if necessary, improving the recently decided EU immigration and asylum package, several governments have chosen to implement ineffective national measures aimed at appeasing the right-wing extremists. Immigration as a chance to enhance economic development is neglected and immigration is more and more defined as a threat as such.
On the other hand, it becomes clear, that the “old” model of the countries of the East and South East supplying their excess labor to meet the demand of the Western European countries is less and less valid. In the meantime, all European countries need to import labor and the addition to the existing labor force is now increasingly coming from countries outside Europe. Considering the needs of different countries have become similar, we need a common immigration policy. This immigration policy must be strongly connected to economic needs and a sophisticated education and professional training policy for all newcomers.
A new EU Commission
On the first day of the Warsaw event, the Commission President Van der Leyen presented her new team of Commissioners to the European Parliament. It is not so much her team as the result of nominations by national governments. We must see, how the parliamentary scrutiny via hearings in front of the different parliamentary committees will go and if and how many of the nominees will be rejected by the Parliament. As far as we can see up until now, the Commission includes only a few strong personalities, like Teresa Ribera Rodriguez from Spain and a few already experienced Commissioners like Maros Sefcovic from Slovakia and Vadis Dombrovskis from Latvia. But as strong as the Commission President is, she also needs strong Commissioners, who actively promote the EU policies with emphasis on the common policies and not on individual member countries' interests. Even if it is true, as a comment in the Financial Times described it, „von der Leyen has unveiled a team of “equals” with enough complexity and chaos to ensure she is above the fray”, Europe needs a good and forward-looking team to overcome the May division and differences.
An important responsibility lies on the new High Representative and Foreign Affairs Commissioner. The former Estonian prime minister Kaja Kallas has already been designated to that position by the European Council. Together with the new Council chairman, the former Portuguese Prime Minister Antonio Costa - and the Commission President herself- she will define Europe’s global aspirations. It is not yet clear how these three personalities that are coming from the Baltics, the South of Europe, and Germany will cooperate and present a common line. Kallas has a clear and outspoken line on Russia’s aggression, which should be welcomed. It may clash with some member governments’ opinions on the war and may become difficult at times when talks with Russia to end the war may become necessary. And Europeans only can hope that, sooner rather than later, the conditions for an armistice and ultimately peace on European soil can be created.
In this respect, a new and more balanced relationship with the US would have to be designed by the foreign affairs team of the EU Commission and Council. Regardless of who wins in the US, the European Union must prepare itself to take more responsibility for its overall security. That is especially important for “solving” the Ukraine issue. As Vessela Tcherneva from the European Council on Foreign Affairs wrote recently, “Through stronger Transatlantic integration and security partnerships, Western allies could offer Ukraine more reliable guarantees of sovereignty and prosperity and create an opportunity for Kyiv to negotiate an end to the conflict under conditions that protect its interests and future stability. However, for this approach to be driven by Europe, both the European Commission and the EU member states will have to define their roles in possible negotiations - and defend their decisions against a possibly hostile U.S. administration.” So, an important task for the future EU is not only to organize a more effective European defense system but hopefully also to prepare for - difficult- peace talks. Both must be closely linked. Easternization of the European Union?
The nomination of Kallas for this prominent position, along with the appointment of Andrius Kubilius from Lithuania as Commissioner for Defense and Space, could be seen as another indication of an Easternization of the European Union. Hungarian historian Ferenc Laczo speaks about an Easternization that “has led governments of Eastern EU countries to prioritize intergovernmental cooperation over supranational integration.”
Laczo adds, that the brain drains of the young, educated people into the Western EU countries have reinforced the conservatism in the Eastern European countries. Strangely, the right wing in Western Europe now likes the “combination of socio-cultural conservatism and ethnonational radicalism” we can find in many Eastern countries. After having argued strongly against enlargement, the populist and radical right-wing expresses many sympathies for Eastern conservatism, and with some they share the understanding of Putin’s aggression against Ukraine. Concerning Russia and Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic countries, and Romania are on an opposing line to the leadership in Hungary and Slovakia. Nevertheless, in general, the Eastern countries and their governments are not fervent supporters of the community method but for intergovernmental cooperation. They are rather critical of the Commission's “interventions” in “national” affairs.
Growing in times of crisis?
Very often it was said in the past, that the European Union needs crises to strengthen its capacities and capabilities. To effectively address critical challenges, people recognize the need to grant the European Union greater competencies and resources to act. The last example was the Covid crisis, where the European Union and especially the European Commission - after some hesitation - acted and supplied its citizens with ample vaccination, which incidentally was criticized by neighboring and other poorer countries as they received the necessary vaccines late and insufficiently
But times changed and the political forces that are critical of many already existing policies have gained additional support in the recent European and national elections. These elections have changed the composition of the European Parliament and the European Commission and will influence the deliberations and discussion in the European Council. It will be hard for the European Commission to fulfill its obligation to defend the European laws and regulations with a right wing, which is known for breaching and violating several of these laws.
And it will be difficult for the EU to act as a global player if nationalism continues to grow and becomes increasingly represented in European institutions. Their mantra is not to “make Europe strong again” (or better “finally strong”) but to “make Europe weaker”. For these forces, a weaker Europe means stronger nations - which is wrong in a globalized world. But that is the biggest challenge for a Europe that is in the process of designing and implementing common policies: the increasing domestic and external forces that seek to stop and reverse this development.
It will require tremendous effort from all European actors, especially the Commission President, to steer the direction towards upholding and implementing basic rights and to finally provide the European Union with the structure and resources necessary to act as a geopolitical player. A much more sophisticated and open dialogue with citizens is essential to overcome nationalistic and populist rhetoric and the false promises of revitalizing a glorious past
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 und then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.