|
European politicians frozen in time on unity |
During the heady months of 2004, Brussels
was the place to be. The EU was the organization to join. Europe was
brimming with optimism and confidence.
On May 1 of that year, eight countries from Eastern and Central
Europe became EU members. Poland’s Mission to the EU threw a marvelous
party. There was a cacophony of languages. There was dancing, singing,
and a real sense of relief. Poland and other countries in the region had
returned to Europe.
There was also a sense that this bigger, united EU was ready to exert
its influence beyond its borders. Almost twelve years later, that
Europe is hardly recognizable.
Europe has retreated into its shell. With the exception of Angela Merkel,
the German chancellor, and her finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble,
both of whom understand what is happening to Europe, EU leaders are
acting as if they have no obligation to defend Europe’s values and the
principles of freedom and openness. More worryingly, they don’t seem to
care about the EU’s influence in the world.
This is confirmed by a new report by the World Economic Forum called Europe: What to watch out for in 2016-2017.
To say it makes grim reading is an understatement. “European leaders
must deliver solutions, and fast, if they want to prevent support for
the EU [from] imploding in coming years,” the report states.
The EU has always had its share of doomsayers. But what is
particularly worrying about this report is the Eurobarometer survey it
cites. Respondents were asked what were the most important issues facing
the EU at the moment. The first in the list was migration, mentioned by
some 58 percent of those surveyed.
The last was the EU’s influence in
the world, cited by about 6 percent. What a depressing indictment of
Europe’s priorities: influence doesn’t matter.
The report also reflects how the EU’s influence inside Europe is
waning, and this is more troubling. If the EU’s role is weakening or if
the bloc is less attractive even to its own members, how can the EU have
influence beyond its borders?
The EU’s values are under threat in many member states. The Polish,
Hungarian, and Slovene publics are intent on upholding the role of the
traditional family only months after the Irish, once a bastion of
Catholicism, voted in a referendum to legalize gay marriage. Warsaw and
Budapest are meddling in the courts and the media—not that Italy’s
former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi had any qualms over how he used
his media empire to further his own interests.
The members of the Visegrad Group,
which consists of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia,
want nothing to do with the refugees (read Muslims) fleeing the wars in
Syria and Iraq. They are not alone. Other countries across Europe are
closing their borders too, mostly in response to the growing appeal of
populists who are Euroskeptic, oppose immigration, and fear
globalization. The November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris gave the
populists a boost.
Those issues aside, the refugee crisis
has exposed the inability of the EU to deal with the challenge of
migration. Above all, it has shown that most European leaders do not see
the connection between helping the refugees and the EU’s influence.
Refugees, migrants, and students who are offered the opportunity to
live, work, and study in a democratic country give something back to
that country if they remain and integrate. As the Economist
argued in its January 29 issue, if migrants and students return to
their homeland with new skills, they are more likely to do business with
the country that welcomed them.
Other reports make similar arguments about Europe’s dwindling influence. The Eurasia Group’s Top Risks 2016
includes a chapter called “Closed Europe.” In it, authors Ian Bremmer
and Cliff Kupchan argue that the rise of populism and nationalism, the
erosion of the rule of law, and the risks to the Schengen system of open
borders are chiseling away at the principles on which the EU was
founded. “Closed Europe is first and foremost a Europe that closes
itself up to the outside world, and whose countries close themselves up
to one another,” the authors write.
Merkel is key to the EU’s future and influence. She has kept the
eurozone countries afloat, although the single currency’s woes are far
from over. She has kept the EU together in standing up to Russia despite
wavering from her Social Democrat coalition partners and other EU
leaders. She has tried to preserve Europe’s values of humanity and
decency through her open-door policy toward the refugees.
Yet for all that, Merkel has been pilloried by several European
leaders. She has been denied the solidarity that Germany had
unflinchingly extended to its EU allies when asked. As a report by Citi GPS
argues, the basic tenets of the European model of liberal democracy
that Merkel is trying to defend are being challenged. And with it,
Europe’s influence.
Read
more: Europe’s Declining Influence, Europe’s Growing Illiberalism -
Carnegie Europe - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace