Events
EU Policy Seminar: The European Union in 2030: Geopolitical realities and considerations for EU policy strategies October 7, 2009
On Wednesday 7 October, the Clingendael European Studies Programme hosted an international conference on the future of Europe. Prominent EU scholars and policy makers discussed the EU’s power base in future geopolitics and the consequences for policy strategies. Distinguished speakers were David Calleo (Johns Hopkins University Washington and author of ‘Follies of Power’), Helen Wallace (London School of Economics), Zaki Laïdi (Paris & College of Europe Bruges) and Thomas Ries (Swedish Institute of International Affairs). They discussed the uncertain future of Europe, as summarized by a quote by Paul Valéry: ‘the problem with our future is that it is not what it used to be’.
In his key note address, David Calleo (Johns Hopkins University Washington and author of ‘Follies of Power’ – see picture) identified three challenges for the EU in an age of multipolarity. First, the EU should aim to maintain and defend its living standards, striking a balance between external pressures as well as securing public support for necessary reform. Second: the EU should put its card upon the stabilization of its immediate neighborhood, in particular in the South/Southeast. A third challenge for the EU is to redefine its special relation to the US as a balancing actor. For Calleo, the US and Europe can hugely enrich one another by sharing their experiences, but if solely focused on their own models, provincialism beckons for both.
In such a world, there is a need for a process-oriented multilateralism, for which the EU is actually very well suited based upon its own experiences with the ‘Community method’. By nature, the EU is risk-averse and defensive: it is a peace builder not interested in conflict. However, there is something the EU is offensive in and this is exporting its norms. In its own neighborhood, the power of the EU’s norms is indisputable (take it or leave it). (enlargement). This was also argued by prof. dr. Zaki Laïdi (SciencesPo Paris/Bruges) Laïdi who emphasized how contrary to common belief norms should not be considered soft power, but hard influence. The way forward for the EU is to strengthen its role as a norm setter, with the promotion of democracy and human rights deserving its full attention. The EU is seen as a fortress Europe, a peace maker and mediator and an ally of the US (instead of a counterforce).
One problem however is that internal perceptions are not matched by those outside the EU. Empirical research on perceptions on Europe presented by Lorenzo Fioramonti (Universities of Bologna and Pretoria) shows that the EU is often perceived on the world stage as pushing double standards. There is a gap between the norms the EU publicly champions imposes (free trade ) and the norms third parties are being confronted with (protectionism, ‘fortress Europe’, the highly disputed common agricultural policy). Another key problem of the EU is its fragmentation. The EU should find a way of dealing with its complexity. Most of all, the EU needs to develop its own autonomous world view. This is a huge challenge, as it was argued that a war is necessary for Europeans to feel as such, a common bond. Moreover, politicians communicate badly and portray a lack of common vision which undermines the EU’s credibility. The EU is in bad need for such a narrative, however, as stressed by Nick Mabey (director 3EG). The EU’s past is one of war, blood, mistakes and dead. Its future should thus be one of humility, preserving Europe’s core values and acting where possible as a path-finder for global security, a low carbon economy. Interestingly, as was also noted by Gaetane Ricard-Nihould (Notre Europe), these two urgent discourses are now separate: that between the EU’s global role and how to keep its citizens on board.
On the basis of a study by Notre Europe and the French institute Mediascope, Ricard-Nihoul argues that ‘peace’ is still the word largely associated by citizens with the EU – but this does not take away the urgency of action and reform.
These reforms are all the more pressing given the economic and security challenges facing the EU which were outlined in th afternoon panel. Thomas Ries (Swedish Institute for International Studies) stressed the consequences of processes of social transformation, economic interdependence and ecological resource scarcity and depletion upon the EU’s security agenda. This agenda should focus on preserving flow security (example: piracy operations or water supply). Economically, as was argued by Oxford-economist Andrea Boltho, developments in Japan should be the EU’s warning signal. This country was beating all records, while it is now facing stagnation. The main problems lie in the field of relatively low productivity, the housing prise bubble, demographic developments, declining savings ratio and population decrease in combination with ageing. This means that immigration and social reform is economically necessary but deeply unpopular and a time bomb for social unrest. George Irvin (London University) suggested a stronger federal economic policy: putting the E into EMU to ensure economic governance of the Eurozone, by making the ECB similar to the US fed and introducing an Eurozone basic pension and a Eurozone treasury.
