Science and politics cannot have an easy relationship. Too different are their approaches. Nevertheless, their relationship could be much more fruitful if both would recognize each other’s demands and necessities. Science and scientists would have to realize that politics and politicians have a very complex environment to take into account, before they could come to political decisions. Different groups of their domestic audience but also of foreign actors try to influence or even manipulate their decisions or non-decisions. Politicians, on the other hand, must not expect that science will present them readymade concepts and measures which guarantee success. Science can and must deliver alternative strategies and at the end it is up to politicians to choose and decide. But of course politicians must deliver clever questions if they want to have useful answers.
In order not to be too abstract, I want to show where from a European, or rather an EU, perspective there are either clever questions or useful answers missing, or both. We need a new approach from both sides to overcome political stalemates and useless intellectual debates. An efficient and effective EU foreign and security policy needs a much more mutual questioning of different approaches in order to reach a fruitful cooperation.
The European Union is an entity sui generis. All the disputes about the EU being more a federation of states or a federal state are useless. The important question is how decisions, especially concerning foreign policy, are taken and how they could be taken better in order to form a concise and effective foreign and security policy. The EU cannot be treated as a state with a clear competence given to the government or a president. It has a much more complex decision-making process influenced by states with different historical backgrounds and experiences. Amidst the bigger countries, Germany and France have a different history and especially empathy towards Eastern and South Eastern countries, while amidst the smaller countries, the Baltic states have a different approach to Russia than countries like Slovakia. Hungary, although governed by an authoritarian leader, has different attitudes from Poland with a similar authoritarian leader in power. Therefore, to work out a common foreign and security policy out of this strange mix of attitudes is not easy.
There is a lot of talk about an efficient EU defense policy. Again, the complexities are often neglected. Most EU member states are also members of NATO. But even they have a different “emotional” relationship to this defense organization. Others are non-aligned or even neutral. To talk about a common army for the EU does not lead anywhere. It would be much more interesting to discuss what an EU defense policy could and should achieve and what kind of equipment and armament could help to reach the goals of such a limited but nevertheless targeted EU defense policy.
Another important issue is the energy policy with regard to energy security but also to the necessary energy transition. How can the necessary energy- especially gas - supply be guaranteed without a too strong dependence on one supplier? And how can gas imports to the EU be used to organize an efficient transition to the long term, alternative and sustainable energy system in accordance with the climate policies of the EU? Answers to these questions would also form the background and framework to discuss rationally the contested issue of putting into operation the Nord Stream II pipeline.
Finally, the connection of climate change and migration is an important element of designing the future EU foreign and security policy. Many politicians and even some scientists are painting a bleak picture of imminent mass migration towards Europe. Many politicians who want to defend Europe against young Africans overrunning Europe argue in favor of helping potential migrants on the ground. But in reality there is not much, anyway not sufficient, support for decent and sustainable living conditions in Africa. The resistance to give a minimum of adequate support to these countries, visible at the recent climate policy conference in Glasgow, is a clear demonstration of this cynical attitude.
Certainly, failures of politics cannot all be shown and remedied by science. But science could make clear where there are unacceptable failures and contradictions in politicians’ behavior and actions. Scientists would have to take up questions which would show these contradictions and present possibilities to overcome them. But certainly, politicians would have to show more respect for science and more readiness to listen to scientists. The European Union - especially the European Commission and the External Action Service - should show much more interest to have several Europe-wide think tanks, where independent scientists are working on improvement of European policy-making.
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.