terça-feira, 23 de fevereiro de 2016

Age of European extremes


OPINION
Age of European extremes

Predictions of EU boom are as hubristic as those of its bust.

If a new version of the EU comes into being, the original members, like France and Germany, will probably become the founding members once again. They will be joined early on by some East European and Scandinavian countries. Whether the new EU would be eager to have all Mediterranean and Balkan countries in their ranks is not certain.”
A future European Union is also more likely to be based on economic interests than common traditions, ideas and emotions. If a new European Union comes into being it will above all have to investigate what went wrong with the present attempt, what mistakes were committed, why it did not stick. These lessons will take time to learn, but they are an obvious precondition for greater success in the future.”

By WALTER LAQUEUR, 2/24/16 5:30 AM CET Updated 2/24/16, 7:07 AM CET

A song is heard these days in Washington, and endlessly repeated across Western capitals. It begins and ends with the words: Who could have known…

Who could have known that Europe would be in such poor shape? There are variations: Who could have known that the Arab Spring that held such promise would end so badly? Who could have known that so many refugees would try to enter Europe so suddenly?


The short answer is: We could have known. In fact, these things were known but considered, at the time, to be minority opinions.

Not so long ago most European politicians, academic experts and the media all agreed that the European Union was a tremendous success. Perhaps it was the accession of so many countries to the EU that caused such extreme optimism. Yet there was little readiness on the part of nation states to surrender any of their traditional prerogatives and proceed towards greater integration.

There was little progress on the road towards a common European policy on energy or foreign affairs. European defense policy was thought to be unnecessary because military power supposedly no longer counted in the modern world. What mattered now was only the economy and in this respect, as well as in modern technology, Europe was considered a leader.

International organizations once established have a tendency to survive by sheer inertia — even if their purpose is no longer obvious.
This extreme Euro-optimism found its expression in a statement issued by the presidents and prime ministers of Europe who met in Lisbon in 2000 to hammer out a plan of action for the EU economy. The mood did not significantly change in the years thereafter. Even after the economic crisis of 2008 it was considered bad form to express doubts about Europe’s leading role in the world.

The crisis was only a temporary setback, many insisted, predicting in countless articles and books that the 21st century would be shaped by Europe: The Soviet Union had collapsed and the European dream of a society more just, civilized, humane and even more prosperous was gradually replacing the American dream. China was far away and often ignored. The whole world was looking up to Europe. The Continent was the model everyone else wanted to copy.

But was this a true image of the real state of Europe or was it a fantasy? True, the Continent overcame the worst consequences of the 2008 economic crisis and its aftermath. But recovery has been agonizingly slow, and its effects are still felt even now, eight years later. Gross domestic product and industrial production in the eurozone both rose by 1 percent during the last quarter of 2015, while unemployment, on average, hovers around 10 percent. (Not to mention a number of countries facing acute bankruptcy unless given massive immediate help).

Those who, like the present writer, expressed doubts about the European recovery were derided as ‘”declinists” and prophets of doom and gloom. If they drew attention to Europe’s political weaknesses it was argued that military strength counted for nothing in the contemporary world anyway. We did not understand that the world had changed completely, our critics said.



Then, quite suddenly two or three years ago, the mood changed dramatically. The very people who had maintained Europe was still a superpower — probably the only superpower — announced that we were “staring in the abyss.” Europe was not only weak, it was about to collapse. German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that the disintegration of Europe was a definite possibility, as did European Parliament President Martin Schulz. The French prime minister confirmed that it was not a distant prospect but could in fact happen quite soon. Commentators in the academic world pronounced similar opinions. Extreme and unwarranted Euro-optimism had been replaced by its opposite.

The idea of Europe as a political superpower was an illusion. But a disunited Europe would be even more starkly exposed to the harsh winds of today’s world.

And this switch was probably equally unwarranted. Why? To begin with, international organizations once established have a tendency to survive by sheer inertia — even if their purpose is no longer obvious. Secondly, to mention but one consequence of dissolving the EU, a return from the euro to old currencies would be expensive. What would be the economic benefits of a Europe divided? This is not at all clear. It is far more likely that considerable damage would be caused by the imposition of customs and other restrictions.

The idea of Europe as a political superpower was an illusion. But a disunited Europe would be even more starkly exposed to the harsh winds of today’s world, in which military power still counts. If the EU breaks down, it will in all likelihood be a partial and not a total process. It will be followed by a learning process, the length of which will probably vary from country to country. It will depend on the economic damage suffered and on the political pressure to which the various countries feel exposed.

If a new version of the EU comes into being, the original members, like France and Germany, will probably become the founding members once again. They will be joined early on by some East European and Scandinavian countries. Whether the new EU would be eager to have all Mediterranean and Balkan countries in their ranks is not certain.

Some of the founders of the original EU argued in retrospect that it would have been preferable to base the project not on common economic interests (which happened to be iron and steel at the time) but on a common European idea. In an ideal world this suggestion would have made perfect sense. But as past experience has shown, the extent of this common idea, its depth and potential impact should not be overrated.

A future European Union is also more likely to be based on economic interests than common traditions, ideas and emotions. If a new European Union comes into being it will above all have to investigate what went wrong with the present attempt, what mistakes were committed, why it did not stick. These lessons will take time to learn, but they are an obvious precondition for greater success in the future.

Walter Laqueur is a historian and author, inter alia, of “Putinism: Russia and Its Future with the West” (Thomas Dunne Books, 2015).

Authors:


Walter Laqueur  

Sem comentários: