top of page

THE FUTURE IS EUROPE


Listen


As John Adams was fond of saying, “Every problem is an opportunity in disguise”. Trump’s lack of support for Ukraine and the Republican House’s reluctance to vote in favour of further military aid before the summer puts the onus on the European countries to fill as best as possible the vacuum. Trump's recent re-election muddies the water even further. Trump, as transactional and mercurial as ever, is fond of saying that the US is paying far more than the Europeans for Ukraine and that the prime responsibility for supporting Ukraine lies with Europe, as Ukraine is, after all, a European nation. At face value, such a position makes sense. Still, in reality, such a statement merely underlines Trump’s intellectual paucity and complete lack of any historical understanding of the world order put in place after the Second World War.


The latest numbers do not support Trump’s declarations.[1] Based on the newest information from the Kiel Institute for World Economy in Germany, the total support for Ukraine by the US stands at 74.3 billion USD. In contrast, the European contribution is 92.2 billion USD. The fundamental difference between the two numbers is in the allocation of resources – with the US spending much more on military aid and Europe on financial assistance.


Finally, one must not forget that since the Russian invasion, 6’479’000[2] refugees from Ukraine have been recorded globally, just over 6 million in Europe, with close to one million electing to stay in Poland. Germany has welcomed over 1.2 million, most of whom travelled through Poland. In comparison, the US has accepted 271’000 refugees.


The support and defence of Ukraine is primarily in America’s interest. It is precisely about the international order that prevents countries such as Russia from illegally invading their neighbouring countries with impunity, emphasising the global security issue at hand, especially given that Russia is a nuclear power. China is paying close attention to the international reaction, with Taiwan at the forefront of its preoccupations. The Russian military has suffered considerable losses and has been effectively substantially downgraded without a single active US casualty – for a total amount that is less than 5% of the total US defence budget. Compare that to Russia, which is now spending 40% of its budget on defence after losing 50% of its military might over the past two years.


Failing to support Ukraine would be equivalent to a policy of appeasement . It would only encourage similar actions in the future, endangering not only the Baltic States but also Poland and Romania. In addition, Trump’s recent irresponsible remarks inviting Russia to do what it wants with so-called delinquent NATO Member states increase the likelihood of Russia attacking one of the weaker NATO States to test NATO solidarity and fracture the alliance by demonstrating that others would not come to its aid, thus rendering the Article 5 Musketeer clause moot.


Overall, Trump is a firm advocate of an isolationist foreign policy. The US retreat from the international stage would diminish American influence in the world and encourage less palpable actors to fill the void.


Herein lies the opportunity for Europe, particularly the European Union. During the recent Munich Security Conference, most of the focus was on bolstering European defence spending and strengthening the Common Security and Defence Policy. The idea of formally creating a European Defence Union is no longer a taboo subject, with President Macron of France being one of the most in favour of a common independent European defence ever since he proposed this idea in a 2017 speech at the Sorbonne University in Paris.[3] The Polish Prime Minister, for example, has called for Europe to become a military power in its own right.[4] Notably, the three Baltic States have decided to set up a common defence zone on their borders with Russia and Belarus.


During a recent meeting of their foreign ministers in a Paris suburb, France, Germany and Poland affirmed their intention to revitalise the so-called “Weimar Triangle”,[5] a regional grouping destined to carry a lot of weight in the European Union.


Notably, nine countries are officially candidates to join the European Union, including Ukraine.[6] This bears witness to the ongoing power of the European Union as a beacon of democracy in what historically was a much divided and war-prone continent. The candidacy of Ukraine is of particular significance, and the recent approval of the European Commission to open accession negotiations is a clear and powerful signal to Russia from the EU that European democratic values and the rule of law are what matters and that Europe will never tolerate Russian aggression. In the words of the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen: “Europe is in the eyes of all Ukrainians who fight for a better future. And together, we can win this fight. Together, we can complete our Union. Together, we can bring Ukraine in our common European home. This is the dream of Ukraine's heroes and Ukraine's martyrs. And it is our dream, too. Together we are Europe”.[7]


The perspective of further enlargement in a tense international environment under the existential threat of Russian aggression and a potential withdrawal of the US has concentrated minds in Europe. Concrete proposals to engage the EU member states in “an ever closer union”, as enshrined in the EU treaties, are under discussion and cannot be underestimated. The dual notions of  “deepening” vs “enlargement”  have historically opposed one another. When the United Kingdom was a member, it favoured enlargement at the expense of a closer union. In contrast, other key countries, such as France, have always considered deepening a prerequisite for enlargement. With the UK out of the European Union, the previous Polish government took over the British point of view. In contrast, the new coalition government is clearly in favour of the French position aligned with Germany, which advocates for both.


Three fundamental changes are under consideration that, if implemented, will mark a major milestone in integrating European nations into a quasi-federal entity. They are (i) the introduction of majority voting, (ii) the elimination of veto rights and (iii) the reduction of the number of EU commissioners. To put matters into perspective, such changes would be equivalent to the US abandoning the Electoral College. These significant changes, complemented by a plethora of further amendments to the European treaties, were accepted by the European Parliament, albeit in a close vote on November 22nd 2013.[8]     

      

Amending the European Treaties is never easy, as all Member States need to ratify the changes. As history has demonstrated on numerous occasions, such ratification often falls foul of national referendums. Smaller countries are loathe to change what they see as their prerogatives in favour of the larger countries.


Furthermore, the recent European elections in June of this year for the European Parliament traditionally offered the national Eurosceptic parties the opportunity to loudly voice their opposition to European integration. An unholy alliance of far-left and far-right parties will strive to hinder any plans to reform the current European legal architecture.


A textbook example is France. The so-called “La France Insoumise (LFI)” on the far-left is viscerally anti-European and places the French Nation above the European Union. LFI is under the leadership of Jean-Luc Mélechon, who made a name for himself in 2005 when he spearheaded the campaign against the proposed European Constitution (although he had backed the Treaty of Maastricht back in 1992, which laid the foundations for the European Union, including the Euro). Likewise, the far-right, rebaptised “Rassemblement National (RN)” under twice presidential candidate Marine Le Pen shares the same anti-European views; at one point, the RN wanted to withdraw France from the Euro.


Furthermore, Trump's landslide electoral victory will galvanise the European far-right parties and offers them a permission structure to participate in government, thus breaking a major taboo in European politics. European voters will feel less guilty about supporting such extreme parties as Trump's victory legitimises their views, as illustrated by the increasing popularity of Trump all throughout Europe.


As a general rule, the far-right parties in Europe do not favour further European integration, and they portray the EU as evil incarnate, considering that giving up national sovereignty to a supranational organisation such as “Brussels” is contrary to national interests. The far-right fringe of the Tory Party in the UK used the same arguments to campaign for Brexit successfully and then after that impose the most extreme version of withdrawal from the EU with disastrous economic consequences for the country.[9] The European far-right movement is also actively promoting a hard-line policy for immigration, and this is a winning topic across Europe. Once again, the American example is the master plan for such policies.


The European leaders understand too well the risks of the anti-European movement in Europe. The war in Ukraine and the increased uncertainty and tension of the political situation in Europe have focused minds and given Europe the unique opportunity to seize the moment and to reply to the current crisis with radical steps towards further integration. The situation demands it. The alternative of retreating behind national borders, as proposed by the opponents to further European integration, is not viable and will only lead to a further weakening of Europe on a military, political, economic and social level.


Make no mistake, the obstacles to an ever closer union are numerous and seemingly unsurmountable. Questions of how to achieve fiscal union and the implications of shared European debt (which became, for the first time, a reality due to COVID) favouring the poorer countries of the EU at the expense of the richer countries are a difficult sell at the best of times. The notion of democratic accountability is also of paramount importance as one of the main arguments against further European integration is the perceived loss of sovereignty at a national level and the disenfranchisement of national voters who fall victim to diktats from an undemocratic supranational organisation.


Despite the reinforcement of the Weimar Triangle, relations between French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz are not good following a difference of opinion on the Ukraine war and how to send arms to Ukraine, and a strain on the Franco-German relationship will make matters all the more difficult.[10] Moreover, the recent collapse of the German coalition government will prevent any serious action until new anticipated elections are held in Germany and a new government is sworn in.


Switzerland is the counterexample for the integration of previously independent political entities with various cultural and linguistic identities. The creation of the modern Swiss State, known formally as the Swiss Confederation, did not happen overnight and spanned the best part of the 19th century from the Congress of Vienna in 1815 to the proclamation of the Swiss constitution of 1848, through to the constitution of 1874 that introduced the principles of direct democracy at a federal level thus firmly establishing Switzerland as a modern federal state with an emphasis on direct democracy. The principle of subsidiarity, whereby the Swiss cantons are sovereign unless explicitly stated in the Constitution, was a critical factor in cementing the new political structure.


The same issues of sovereignty and subsidiarity are at play in Europe and drive the integration debate on the continent, albeit on a far larger scale. However, the challenges are similar, and Switzerland has shown the way. What took close to the best part of a century in the case of Switzerland can happen in Europe faster, given notably the much stronger interdependence between modern European nations and the acceleration of political events in general.


As an antidote to the question of popular sovereignty that strikes such a strong chord amongst Europeans, introducing direct or semi-direct democracy is a solution.


There is no magic bullet to find the perfect solution. Still, the shift in the historical political paradigm occurring today, combined with the high risk of major armed conflict in Europe, requires bold action.


The call to arms, which is a central theme I repeatedly come back to, is not only a uniquely American requisite; it is just as potent and powerful a necessity for Europe as well.



[1] Ukraine Support Tracker – Methodological Update & New Results on Aid “Allocation” ; IFW, Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Research Note UST 02/2024, February 16, 2024

[2] “Ukrainian Refugee Situation”, UNCHR Operational Data Portal, March 2024, https://data.unhcr.org/en/situations/ukraine

[4] “EU unity against Russia is ‘first commandment’ Tusk says”, Polish Press Agency, February 13, 2024, www.pap.pl/en/news/eu-unity-against-russia-first-commandment-tusk-says

[5] “Political declaration after the meeting of the Weimar Triangle countries”, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Poland”, February 13, 2024, www.gov.pl/web/diplomacy/meeting-of-the-weimar-triangle-countries

[7] “European Solidarity with Ukraine: Ukraine’s path towards EU accession”, European Commission, https://eu-solidarity-ukraine.ec.europa.eu/ukraines-path-towards-eu-accession_en

[8] “Proposals of the European Parliament for the amendment of the Treaties”, Euopean Parliament,  November 22, 2023, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0427_EN.html

[9] “The impact of Brexit, in charts”, The Economist, January 3, 2023, http://www.economist.com/britain/2023/01/03/the-impact-of-brexit-in-charts

[10] James Angelos and Joshua Posaner: “  Scholz and Macron feud over arms for Ukraine”, Politico, February 27, 2024, www.politico.eu/article/olaf-scholz-and-emmanuel-macron-feud-over-ukraine-aid/

Comments

Devine Commentary Tagline
bottom of page