After speaking in Brussels about the many new and old challenges the EU must meet, the former President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy reiterated: “I am a man of hope. Fear only prevents you from acting”. I fully agree with this statement, but it becomes more and more difficult not to despair. If one looks at the many challenges coming from outside and inside the European Union one can hardly see how a still fragile European Union is able to deal with these issues, which often threaten its very existence.
Nevertheless, the new EU Commission, the new EU Parliament, and the new President of the EU Council must try to manage the huge challenges and lead Europe into a new era, which is certainly full of conflicting interests. But the leaders responsible should be aware that the issues at stake are not only political in a narrow sense but need a more sophisticated strategy. Such a strategy must address the concerns of the European citizens and offer motivation to support the necessary policies for defending and enhancing European interests. The European Union needs a new and convincing narrative for dealing with these issues.
The most immediate “external” issue the EU has to deal with is certainly the Russian aggression against Ukraine and the pressure on other countries, including the misinformation of the European public via social media. But let us also look at China with its growing aspirations to exert strong economic and political influence globally. In addition, we have to recognize that the US has developed economically decisively stronger than the European Union. And Donald Trump will likely try to punish Europeans with higher tariffs - at least he will try.
The European Union is definitely confronted with a new competitive economic and political situation. In addition, we should not forget the European efforts to combat dramatic climate change and its worst consequences. Connected with these policies are the aspirations of reducing global poverty and extreme health risks. It would be necessary to strengthen all these global political initiatives in order to reduce irregular migration into the European Union. Although a certain amount of migration is necessary to fill vacant jobs, immigration is seen by a rising number of voters as negative, and they demand that immigration should be stopped,if not reversed.
But many challenges and threats are also coming from within. The European elections and the different national elections in recent months show a reluctance among many citizens to support parties that have been part of the political forces building up a new Europa after the two world wars. Some new political parties, like the Greens, joined the pro-European forces with a special emphasis on greening our societies and combating climate change, but others have formed themselves from the beginning as anti-European parties.
Populists, especially those from the right, are gaining votes and influence. These voters prefer the past over the present or the future. The past is often glorified, because it guaranteed peace and stability, even if it related to less freedom- as in the eastern part of Europe. So not only has the global environment changed, but the domestic political scene as well. It became much harder to convince the public to look beyond their immediate interests, as justified and convincing as they are. And it is much more difficult to invite the voters to have a long-term view. Populists try to attract the public with short-term promises and benefits - for the moment very successfully.
Politics in general, but specifically European politics, must recognize that the Europeanization of individual and society attitudes do not automatically follow the institutional changes. There are no -or at least insufficient - efforts undertaken to “create” European citizens. But without European citizens, no united Europe can be successfully designed and implemented. European politics has to find a way where the urgency to quickly react to a radically changed global environment can be connected with respect for people’s resistance to overtly rapid changes of their immediate environment.
In this respect, the question must be asked: can moderate right wing populists help find acceptable answers to people‘s concern and to the new power in Washington? Well, the Commission President - rightly - accepted one such representative from Prime - Minister Meloni’s party Fratelli d’Italia, as one of her Vice-Presidents. Giorgia Meloni herself conducts a clearly right-wing policy in Italy but tries to be constructive on the European level. As Mattia Ferraresi wrote recently in the New York Times, Ms. Meloni “can play hardball nationalism or wrap herself in a European flag, as the circumstances require; and she’s a team player adept at navigating the shoals of Brussels.” In addition, she is known for having good and regular contact with Elon Musk.
Mattia Ferraresi concludes: “Ms. Meloni is clearly ready for her next task: bringing Trumpism into the heart of Europe.” This can be interpreted in different ways. One - positive interpretation would be that she is helpful in finding compromises with Trump and at the same time organize support for the European project amidst right wing voters. The other would be that Ms. Meloni is trying to transform the EU in the direction of Trumpland and would, therefore, support the spread of authoritarian governance inside the European Union. And that is a direct threat to the European Union.
Russia, its war against Ukraine and the US
Much has been written about the Russian aggression against Ukraine. But we still see no way out of this war unless the West cuts its military and civil aid to Ukraine and give Russia the opportunity to win the war. Equally we cannot know if, how and how long the European Union - and the United Kingdom - will be able to support Ukraine, so that that they can at least slow the speed of Russia advancing on Ukrainian territory. Whatever the next year will bring on the Ukrainian military and political front, building up a stronger European defense will be paramount for European security. Anyway, Russia will not be defeated like Germany after World War ll. Even if weakened, it will be strong enough to start new conflicts and wars after any ceasefire or peace agreement. North Korea and China and others may help them - directly or indirectly.
Europe must also recognize that Russia is moving into a different society. Putin is more powerful than any individual Russian leader in the Communist era, except for Stalin. He has nearly no oversight like the Politbüro had during the Communist times. In addition, he is trying to transform the Russian society into a submissive one, more than ever before. Recently he made clear that the military who have succeeded in killing Ukraine soldiers should play a bigger role in Russia. As the Financial Times reported: “They should be the ones taking up leading positions, whether in the education system, in non-governmental organizations, state companies, in business, in state and municipal administration” Putin said, “The old elites should be replaced with military men. Such people…can be trusted with Russia’s future.” And Putin’s alliance with the - in the meantime deposed - brutal Syrian dictator Assad and with North Korea’s leader are further proof of his orientation towards political brutality.
Irrespective of the Russian threats, Trump will in any case insist on higher defense spending by the Europeans - especially by buying US military equipment. Therefore, not only for Germany but also for the European Union as a whole - and for all member states - the Russian aggression has led to a “Zeitenwende”. This means not only that Europeans will have to spend more in order to defend Europe against direct military aggression. But they must also strengthen their defense industry. This contradicts past developments, as in the last years, the import of US military equipment has increased rather than decreased. Supporting the European defense must also mean reducing the variety of tanks, helicopters and other equipments. This reduction must also lead to greater interoperability of military equipment.
The Russian aggression has in the meantime taken different forms including cyberattacks and widespread misinformation and election interference via social media. Economic security is also of great concern. In this respect, the question remains whether the European Union is ready to protect the seaways and to fight for open sea routes. Europeans should be aware that irrespective of near- and friend-shoring, the necessity to have functioning global supply chains will not disappear.
Another issue is the question how the new relationship inside the “West” should and must be re-arranged. Even if Trump is insisting on stronger defense expenditures by Europe and different Asian countries this cannot be achieved in the short term. Cooperation with the United States must continue even if - what many fear - the election of Donald Trump is not just a change of an administration but a regime change. Europeans must not underestimate the fact, that it is not just a new US President that has been elected. Nearly all the nominations by Donald Trump show his willingness for discontinuity and disruption.
On the one hand, it is a disruption of a society, which until recently looked optimistically into the future, but now has become nostalgic. Trump is promising the re-establishment of the good times to the American public. On the other hand, it is a disruption of the long-term democratic development and openness by establishing an oligarchic system of Big Tech companies with their technological dreams closely connected to authoritarian politicians. Furthermore, Tech companies are increasingly engaged in promoting nuclear power to safeguard the supply for their high energy demand. Some of the proposed members of Trump’s administration have a criminal record and may support criminal groups who are using cryptocurrencies to hide their activities. That is a very dangerous mixture. It is this America which Europe must ally with, if it wants to counter the Russian aggression in Europe - and Chinese expansion in Asia but also beyond.
But a basic challenge in the coming years is the growing number of European citizens pleading against arms delivery to Ukraine and looking for peace at any cost. This attitude resonates with the same attitudes expressed by leading Republicans in Donald Trump’s circle. European leaders must reiterate that all the talks and actions concerning the defense of Ukraine and European defense are part of a peace strategy. The aim of the “Zeitenwende” is not to prepare a war or establish a war economy but to be prepared to defend the European citizens against any aggression from outside. It is a vital part of a sustainable European security policy.
Whoever wants peace and security in Europe must accept increased defense spending. But European leaders should be frank and honest. Military expenditures divert resources from other areas of spending. It should not be financed in a way which unfairly burdens the weaker fruits of society. And as much as possible, innovations developed inside the military sectors should be transferred into the civil sector.
Europe’s competitiveness
In the meantime, the –often-cited Draghi Report on European competitive weaknesses must be a wakeup call. Europeans have to sincerely think about how to strengthen the European economy. At least in the long run, political strength and influence are strongly dependent on a sound economic basis. But if one compares the economic growth and productivity of the European Union with that of the United States, one can see a clear European disadvantage. In a recent “Big Read” article in the Financial Times, authors V. Romei, W. Crofton and C. Smith write: “U.S. labor productivity has grown by 30% since the 2008-2009 financial crisis, more than three times the pace in the Eurozone and the UK. That productivity gap, visible for a decade, is reshaping global hierarchies. Economic growth in the Eurozone has been a third of the U.S.’s since the pandemic…”
Draghi himself writes in his report: “If we exclude the tech sector, EU productivity growth over the past 20 years would be broadly at par with the U.S.” The figures confirm that the Tech sector, with strong U.S. aspirations for innovation, gives the U.S. an economic but also political advantage. Only China is coming close to the US especially with its policies to lead the world in Artificial Intelligence.
Of course, one must add that the rest of the picture is much more favorable for Europe. As the above-mentioned authors but especially Martin Wolf - also in the Financial Times - make it clear, the economic growth in the U.S. is combined with higher income inequality, higher maternal deaths, higher mortality rates in general and lower life expectancy in comparison to Europe. The question, therefore, is as Martin Wolf puts it: “…whether these pathologies are the necessary prove of economic dynamism?” In fact, Europe must try to dynamize its economy especially by promoting the conditions for innovative entrepreneurship and at the same time, remain a society which is striving to more equality and social well-being while preserving the foundations of welfare societies.
Europe must learn from the U.S. without changing its special way of balancing technological progress and cultural and social attitudes. As the U.S. with the recent election of Donald Trump - and indirectly of Elon Musk - is developing towards a society characterized by a fusion of Tech companies with political power, Europe should be aware of this dramatic change. Individual freedom is threatened both by media controlled by a few individuals and by an authoritarian President in alliance with these media. This cannot be an acceptable way of organizing European societies, although some forces may plead for sacrificing civil liberties in order to get a regime which is guaranteeing stability.
But fearing an “American” scenario must not prevent Europe from investing in new technologies and developing financial instruments - like a common capitals market - to keep the respective companies in Europe. Europe and the different member states must develop a common framework of industrial policy which gives new incentives for investing in new technologies and for start-ups to be financed with European money and therefore staying with their headquarters in Europe.
It will be decisive whether and how far the European Union can find a new balance between regulation and incentives for entrepreneurial activities. To complain about too much regulation is today the “state of the art” especially in business circles. Most of the EU regulations have a convincing purpose and background. Nevertheless, the question should be asked and answered: are these regulations fulfilling their original purpose? Even if regulations have a very convincing rationale behind them, if they fail to deliver the aspired results or if they put an unjustified burden on investments, they should be either scrapped or at least adapted and give business a competitive chance.
Europe must recognize that it can only partly and in specific cases change the global rules by European legislation. The European Union needs a well-considered but also courageous de-bureaucratization. On the other hand, it needs clear guidelines for implementing climate change policies, especially for energy transformation. European rules should be supportive of a modern, innovative and sustainable industry.
Europe’s competitiveness depends also on the availability of a well-educated workforce. The need for labor - qualified and less qualified - is varying. But looking at the population development, it is pretty sure that we need immigration to fill the different positions. It is fully understandable that citizens do not want to be confronted with uncontrolled immigration. Therefore, the European Union must implement the already-agreed migration and asylum pact and if necessary, adapt and complement it. But it must resist the call for an immigration stop and any form of anti-migration vendetta. On the contrary, a climate of welcome for regular migrants combined with professional training for migrants and refugees is supporting economic development and social welfare for all. At the same time, it should be accompanied by stronger efforts of integration into European and different national societies.
China‘s threat
For many years the Europeans thought that China would be only an economic challenge. It produced an enormous rise in wealth and lifted many citizens out of poverty. In addition, it planned and built many infrastructure links in the framework of its Belt and Road Initiative. Access to the world markets were a priority for China’s foreign economic policy. China recognized also the necessity of gaining access to major critical resources and developed an efficient industry of processing the raw materials into products, needed for the new and sustainable economy. Due to that policy the dependency on Chinese products, critical especially - but not only - for energy transformation grew decisively.
This Chinese long-term strategy of global infrastructure projects, of giving loans to many countries and of creating an extensive industry around critical resources was used by its leadership to gain political influence - also inside the EU. Recently another element of possible interference was discovered. Reports demonstrate that Chinese investments in Europe but also in the US - especially in ports - are equipped with devices that can be steered digitally from China directly. This enables them to stop activities if they have an interest or at least use it to blackmail specific countries equipped with Chinese installations. China is already now using different economic instruments to put pressure on their trading partners, including export controls of critical goods. And more could come.
Also, in the past intelligence and spying devices have been discovered in buildings constructed by Chinese companies like the African Union headquarters in Addis Abeba. Furthermore, there is a well-founded suspicion, that a Chinese ship was recently destroying an undersea cable in the Eastern Sea of Europe. Although China is not part of the Russian war against Ukraine, it is supporting this war in different ways. Seeing the many efforts of China to be a leading force against Western supremacy, it is reasonable for China to support Russia in its war efforts, which are also interpreted by Vladimir Putin himself as part of a fight against the Western domination of the world.
The West, with all its colonial past and neo-colonial presence is co-responsible for the Global South’s support or at least understanding of these Chinese efforts against Western supremacy Few see a new kind of imperialism and colonialism in Chinese policies. As few see a colonial war in the Russian war against Ukraine, clearly defined by the Kenyan ambassador to the United Nations in the Security Council debate after the Russian war against Ukraine started.
With all this in mind, Europe must find a balanced way of treating China as it was defined by the EU itself: an economic partner for cooperation, an economic competitor and a systematic rival. Anyway, European politicians must not be naive. China has long-term economic but also political interests: it wants to be the dominant global force. Russia already became quite dependent on China; China wants to extend its influence not only in Asia, but it wants to use all its investments to extend its influence worldwide.
For the time being, China has certainly an interest to keep the global economy alive including the functioning of different supply chains. But it wants to have the power - in case it deems it necessary - to block other countries in their activities and especially interrupt transport routes. We should only think about China’s special interest of reunification with Taiwan. In this connection, China could be easily inclined to use all its capacities to enforce its efforts. The Taiwan issue is only one reason, why China is increasing its military spending enormously.
So de-risking from China, while avoiding a total political and economic decoupling is absolutely necessary. Europe should raise self-sufficiency in critical resources parallel with a diversification of the supplies in these resources. Rising independence from all big powers is important. But this is not an anti-globalization policy. Global efforts and cooperation are paramount for solving or managing many issues from climate change to fighting global poverty... Anyway, Europe must develop and implement its own China policy rather than being part of the U.S. strategy.
Unfinished European Unification Process
After the extension of the European Union with ten new countries mainly from Central Europe in 2004 as part of the 'Big Bang' enlargement, and the addition of Romania and Bulgaria in 2007, only Croatia –was able to join in 2013. Since then, the EU enlargement has stalled, gaining new momentum only due to the Russian aggression against Ukraine. On the other hand, the United Kingdom left the EU. The Russian aggression and the election of a new UK government have led to closer cooperation with the EU, especially in the field of defense. The Russian aggression against Ukraine is a game changer, as the European Union is more aware that, for Russia, this war is part of a hybrid attack on a united Europe of democratic nations. It is unclear if this was originally the intention of Vladimir Putin or if this is the result of his failed attempt to occupy Kyiv and topple the government including President Zelenskyy. Regardless, President Putin is increasingly playing the card of opposing Western domination on behalf of those he claims are victims of it. First, it is about rescuing the Russian-speaking people, then, protecting Orthodox communities; and finally, supporting all those who oppose the Western economic, political and cultural influence. With this strategy, he aims to gain global sympathy for his risky war.
In this situation, we find that across the wider Europe, there are not only political forces clearly rejecting Russian aggression, but also leaders seeking to accommodate it. They try to convince their citizens that opposing Russia could lead to direct involvement in the war in Ukraine. This is the narrative Viktor Orban promotes to his voters within the EU, and it is how the Georgian Dream party recently won the elections in Georgia. For them pro-European forces are portrayed as part of a “global war party “.
In the countries concerned, there is often a strong dividing line between pro- and anti-European forces. You can find this especially in Moldova, where the majority support forpro-European forces in the recent elections and a referendum was only marginal. In Georgia, the anti- EU forces won in the recent elections, but large protests by pro-EU forces persist, especially in the capital, Tbilisi. A similar picture can be found in some countries in the Western Balkans, especially in Serbia. Anti-EU and pro-Russia propaganda, particularly on social media, contribute to the critical attitudes towards the European Union. However, complaining about these interferences is not enough active information campaign and better communication are paramount to counter these influences.
As the path to join the European Union remains long to go and full of stumbling blocks, the EU’s principle promises and limited financial support are often too weak to rally public support behind its flag. However, the EU should remain committed to including all the countries it has promised membership. Additionally, it should explore new ways to strengthen ties with the UK. This requires a readiness to develop new and differentiated approaches to gradually bring these countries closer to the EU, step by step, before full membership can be achieved – or, in the case of the UK, perhaps even regained.
Several models have been developed in recent years, but there is a lack of courage and creativity in the various capitals to adapt the enlargement. An excellent overview of the different enlargement models, titled “The Quest for Meaningful (Interim) Goals” has been published by Friedrich Ebert Stiftung and written by Adnan Cerimagic. The paper demonstrates that different paths towards enlarging the European Union are possible. However, Europe often disappoints the forces in candidate countries fighting still to join a democratic Europe. At times, Europe may have raised too many hopes and expectations. It is time to explain what can realistically be expected from Europe, and these commitments must then be decided upon and implemented.
Risky neighborhood
Europe must address not only the issue of enlargement but also the challenges arising from its risky and conflict-ridden southern and southeastern neighborhood. Given Europe’s history and its proximity to these regions, the European Union cannot avoid engaging intensively with developments in North Africa and the Middle East. The recent appointment of a separate Commissioner for the Mediterranean, in addition to the Commissioner and High Representative for Foreign Affairs, demonstrates the Commission President’s acknowledgement of Europe’s special responsibilities and interests in these regions.
All that would not be too difficult for the European Union if the countries of the region were closely cooperating. However, we must deal with countries and people entrenched in conflict with one another. That is particularly true in North Africa, especially with an ongoing conflict between Morocco and Algeria, as well as the conflict inside Libya. Furthermore, many of these countries are governed by authoritarian regimes. The most prominent conflict, however, remains one between Israel and Palestine, as well as tensions between Israel and Iran and its allied forces in Lebanon, among others.
Europe is unfortunately divided on many issues, such as the war between Israel and the Palestinians and specifically concerning the war in Gaza. For some political forces, their political attitude is defined by a sense of guilt about the past, especially regarding the horrible crimes committed during the Holocaust and the persistent antisemitic sentiments in their population. They even accept clear violations of international law and international humanitarian law by the Israeli side. Interestingly the still antisemitic forces of the extreme right align with this stance because anti-muslim and islamophobic attitudes are seen as a priority and as more politically correct than antisemitism.
When Mairav Zonszein wrote recently in the New York Times that Israeli “lawlessness and state violence directed at Palestinians for so long has at last started to seep into Jewish Israeli society” one could also argue that the acceptance of this violence has similarly seeped into European Middle East policies. And then he wrote: “The nearly carte blanche support Israel has received from the Biden administration throughout much of this war has further empowered the most hard-line elements of the nation’s politics” a similar argument could be made - with some restrictions- for European politics. With Donald Trump as president, this situation will likely become even worse.
It is not surprising that many people inside and outside of Europe complain about the double standards of these policies when compared to the strong condemnation of Russia’s violation of international and humanitarian law. Rather than comparing the wars themselves or their origins, the focus is on the different attitudes towards violations of the legal framework created to prevent or at least limit excessive killings and destruction. This critical view of European double standards and restraint in the case of Israel’s actions is especially noticeable in countries of the Global South. For them, it is another proof that the West preaches respect for human rights as a guideline for other countries but fails to uphold it for themselves. This hypocrisy, which also characterized Western colonialization, is again practiced when supporting another Western country - Israel. Thus, Europe finds itself caught in a trap, failing to adhere to its own principles and attempting to redefine what constitutes acceptable self-defense versus undue excesses of that right.
Recently, another challenge has arisen: the fall of a brutal and kleptocratic regime in Syria. Even if the fall of the Assad regime should be welcomed, the question remains: how to deal with an Islamist force taking power, even if it claims to be less radical than its roots might suggest. Many Europeans- with Austria at the forefront - reacted immediately by stopping asylum procedures and organizing the return of Syrian refugees. On the other hand, some of the same forces were complaining that the Assad regime, which was an element of security, was falling apart. This is especially true of Israel’s official position.
Gideon Rachman in the Finance Times rightly argues: “For both humanitarian and geo-political reasons, it is wrong-headed for Western outsiders to regret the fall of the Assad regime. It was perhaps the most brutal government in a region full of ghastly regimes…Assad led millions of Syrians to flee the country, creating a refugee crisis that destabilized the EU and generated severe tensions in Turkey. Syria under Assad also became a center for transnational crime and the drugs trade.”
It will not be easy, but Europe must try to find a way of communicating with the new power in Damascus, as well as with Turkey, which actively supported the takeover by the Islamist rebels. Europe cannot send a message as Trump did, when he posted on social media: “This is not our fight. Let it play out. Do not get involved.” Europe should get involved by offering help and support on the condition that respect for basic human rights and religious tolerance are demonstrated by the new power groups. It is uncertain whether such a strategy will be successful, but it is worth trying.
Certainly, there are many other critical areas that have an influence on European security. In this respect, only two regions are mentioned, the Sahel in Africa and the South Caucasus. Concerning the latter, an excellent paper “Options for EU Engagement in the South Caucasus: a Reality Check” has been written by A. Dienes, M. Hushcha und S. Kaschowitz and published on iipvienna.com.
Ready to fight for a free and democratic Europe?
The principal issue for European leaders is to convince European citizens to support the construction of a new Europe. When discussing the enlargement issue, several politicians argued - and still do - we should not speak about enlargement or accession to the EU. For them, it was a homecoming of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe to Europe. But the European Union - or better, its respective predecessors - were established to overcome the ”old” Europe of prejudices, divisions, conflicts, and wars. This was the founding argument and not economic cooperation, which was and is one of the important building materials.
In the meantime, the enthusiasm for building something new has disappeared. In different opinion polls, people are looking more to the past than to the future. It is not surprising that in times of uncertainty and global chaos - from wars to climate change - people long for the past. Even if the past was not glorious, it was characterized by a likelihood of economic and social progress for most people. Nevertheless, the past is often painted in beautiful colors or seen through rose-tinted glasses. People knew how to adapt to the systems they lived in and could accommodate themselves to the economic, political and social environment. Now, financial crises and a regional war nearby - which could escalate into a world war - underline the feeling of lost stability and certainty. Accommodation is nearly impossible due to the many changes and uncertainties.
Under these circumstances, it is extremely important to speak openly about the challenges ahead and the ways Europe can and should choose. It would be necessary to lay out the different scenarios of interrupting or even rewinding the European project in comparison to a policy of reasonably strengthening the European Union. And the often cited “Europe of Nations” in contradiction to the European Union, is definitely weakening all the European nations - the smaller ones more than the bigger ones - in relation to the U.S., Russia, and China. European leaders must communicate that much more is at stake. Without dramatizing the threats Europe is confronted with, European and national leaders should present the arguments for the proposed policies, even if they bring some hardship in the short term.
We live in a different world, where the West in general and the European countries specifically cannot rely on continuing the relatively easy paths we followed in the past. In spite of what the Russian, Chinese and some leaders of the Global South declare, the West is no longer dominating the world. Unfortunately, many Western leaders did not realize this in time and did not prepare their citizens for the new balance of power. They should even have helped to reorganize the global institutions by rebalancing the membership and voting power in favor of the Global South.
In this respect, Simon Kuper in the Financial Times cited Bruno Maçães, a former European Affairs minister from Portugal: “The loss of power by a formerly hegemonic West looks to many like a colonization in reverse.” And Simon Kuper explains: “The European experience for about 500 years was hegemony. Europeans first colonized Africa and the Americas, then India, before helping inflict China’s “century of humiliation”. For almost all the time, the only threats we faced were from other Europeans. And while Europeans emigrated to every other continent, until the 1950s hardly anyone had the temerity to immigrate to Europe. That seemed to us the natural order.”
But times have changed dramatically. Migration is now towards Europe and not away from it. Yes, challenges still come from within the continent with Russia occupying Ukraine, but definitely also from outside, with China as a world power and many global forces attacking the supremacy of the West, primarily the U.S. but also Europe. Kuper, following Bruno Maçães, argues for modesty: “We’re now a small player that must get along with bigger players who have different values.”
But let’s be clear, this is not the same attitude as the right wing proposes. It promotes a policy of isolationism, cutting off migration, neglecting global issues like climate change, and acquiescing, even submitting, to an imperialist Russia. That would lead to the end of Europe as a relevant player altogether. Europe would get more and more weakened economically and fail to be a partner for fighting climate change. Additionally, the migration pressure towards Europe will increase due to more conflicts at the border. An imperialist Russia would get more appetite for changing borders, and new conflicts and even wars would break out in Europe itself - not a promising future.
Sure, forces who promoted a way back into the past would cry victory! But it would be a Pyrrhic victory, not a glorious future as they promise, but a disaster, as the past often was. The past - before courageous Europeans started a process of unification - was a cruel past for most of the European citizens. Civil wars and two world wars characterized Europe as dominated by nationalist forces. And the more they presented an arrogant and racial nationalism - like the Nazis did - the more the countries and their people suffered.
As difficult as it is to meet all today’s many challenges, it is much more in the interest of Europeans to accept some sacrifices - with money going into supporting investments and common defense - than to close their eyes and seek refuge in an outdated nationalism. But as underlined in the beginning of this article, much more effort must be put into communicating with the citizens and offer help and support in order to digest the many changes that need to be undertaken in a relatively short time. Europe must clearly define the differences between the U.S., Russian, and Chinese systems presented by their respective leaders. On the one hand, we have “Trumpland”, which is characterized by a close interlinking of authoritarian politicians and Big Tech controlling the information flow and content. Then, there exists “Putinland,” which is more and more militarized and defined as savior of people rejecting the Western enlightenment. “Xi Jinpingland” is offering a society with extreme social control of its citizens daily behavior.
Europe must confront these societies and their leaders with a clear concept of democracy, public welfare, and innovation, with respect for cultural tradition and diversity. It will not be easy to save this concept in view of the many enemies from outside and from within. That is the special task of all those in the political center, who are ready to fight against a return to authoritarian leadership based on prejudice and nationalism.
As different as their approaches to individual political issues and challenges are, there should be enough opportunities and space for a common concept of European renaissance. This renaissance has to look into the future and then prepare for it. A future that offers some hope and invites citizens’ engagement. It must also appeal to positive emotions like empathy and solidarity.
Main points for action:
- Developing a European narrative for ways to overcome vital threats
- Connecting traditional values with contributions from changing diversity
- The European narrative must be based on reason but also appeal to emotions
- Trying to integrate ‘reasonable’ right-wing forces into that narrative
- Continuing to support Ukraine while looking for acceptable armistice/peace
- Building up of European defense and defense industry to implement peace
- Strengthening military interoperability to raise efficiency of money spent
- Developing a European strategy of de-risking from China on critical materials
- Cooperation with US without copying the new U.S. normal of Trump/Musk
- Raising European competitiveness through industrial policy and private investments
- Overhauling of EU regulatory system - less but more efficient regulations
- Defining migration policy: economically sound and humanitarian sensible
- Start of a new enlargement process with gradual integration into EU
- Design and implementation of Middle East policy based on international law
- Offering citizens a positive but realistic perspective for future global Europe
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.