Berlin, 02/07/2012 (Agence Europe) - “European Influence Under Scrutiny” was the title of the Forum of Think Tanks held in Berlin on Tuesday 26 and Wednesday 27 June, organised by Notre Europe, in cooperation with the Stiftung Wissenschaft Politik (SWP) and in partnership with Agence Europe. The forum, the third of its kind after Paris in 2008 and Barcelona in 2010, brings together around 30 think tanks within the framework of Notre Europe's “Think Global Act European” programme, and provided the opportunity for 70 politicians and researchers to reflect on and discuss in depth the influence of the European Union on the international stage.
Gauging the real influence of a country, and even more a body as complex as the EU, is no small task. As Professor Richard Cooper (Harvard University) pointed out, if a criterion such as references to a country or region in the press and/or on the internet is applied, the number of times the name of the country or region crops up can increase dramatically following an extreme weather event, a sports competition, a war or a major economic or social crisis, without this necessarily being indicative of influence. He said that the EU had the real ability to display leadership through the example it sets (the successes of European integration over the last 50 years, and the attraction the European model exercises on Central and Eastern Europe) and through its initiatives (setting up the International Criminal Court; climate change; the Russian-Georgian crisis; and the intervention in Libya). However, as other speakers noted, the initiative with regard to Georgia was more down to Nicolas Sarkozy, whose country was, at the time in 2008, holding the six-month rotating presidency of the EU Council of Ministers, rather than to the EU institutions, and the NATO intervention in Libya was the result of a drive from France and the UK. So then, the influence of the European Union, as a bloc, must be clearly separated from that of Europeans at large. This view is not shared by Volker Perthes, Director of the SWP, who noted that this bears strong resemblance to the attitude of national governments which portray initiatives and action as being national even when these initiatives and action are European or derive from a decision taken at European level. Would the Chinese see leadership differently depending on whether it was exercised from Beijing or Shanghai? Adopting views of this kind can only diminish the perception of our own influence, Perthes argued.
Nevertheless, it is impossible to ignore the extraordinary loss of credibility of the EU in the international arena as a result of the sovereign debt and euro crises, as Pascal Lamy flagged up, the shift back towards intergovernmentalism and the repatriation of foreign policy that has been seen since the Lisbon Treaty came into effect, as Antonio Vitorino pointed to, and the lack of political leadership in the EU and/or at the head of the European institutions, according to several speakers. Among many other areas, this loss of influence can be seen: - in the financial sector (a speaker noted that in fora such as the G20, the IMF or the World Bank, “Europe is no longer seen as part of the solution but as part of the problem, or even as the problem”; another said that, although Europe is well represented -seven or eight Europeans - no one listens to the EU any more because it always says the same thing or because member states cannot agree with one another, and the solution to this can only come by replacing the various European representatives with the European Commission alone, given the huge loss of credibility of the European institutions); - in international trade where the EU has always been a major player but where it has moved away from multilateralism towards bilateral cooperation (transatlantic, for example); - in development cooperation, where its ability to provide funding is waning while that of the emerging economies is increasing; - in the environment and climate change where “the European flag is still there, but it is flying alone”. To break free from this accelerating spiral of loss of influence, the EU must defend its social market economy model, stated a speaker, highlighting that this model, based on social fairness, is a key feature of European identity and its attractiveness. According to Pascal Lamy, the EU is facing “an existential problem” and there is urgent need of greater political integration, “more cooperation, solidarity and discipline”. “We must move to something more federal as a matter of urgency”, added the former European commissioner, indicating that, in the debate between the intergovernmental and Community approaches, he was an “agnostic”, such is the urgency of making progress.
Turning their attention to the common security and defence policy (CSDP), forum participants made the point that the world has changed dramatically since the EU adopted its security strategy in 2003 and that these changes have to be taken into consideration (revolutions and instability in North Africa and the Middle East, emerging powers, shift in US strategy in the Pacific, impact of the crisis on defence capabilities, cybersecurity, and more). Is it possible to begin a review of the security strategy, or even undertake the drafting of a White Paper on the French model? Opinion is divided. For some, this is problematic at the present moment and a more appropriate time should be awaited to ensure that the outcome is worth the effort. For others, such as Ronja Kempin (SWP), the success of the ESDP (the forerunner of the CSDP) may, in large part, be put down to the impetus generated by the adoption of the security strategy and the decline of the CSDP may be attributed to the inability to review the strategy in 2008. Review would, then, be necessary to provide fresh stimulus to the CSDP today. With or without the review of security strategy, a number of other avenues are worth exploring, another German speaker said, underlining: - better use of the opportunities offered by the Lisbon Treaty (enhanced cooperation, the opportunity for a group of member states to undertake an operation on behalf of the EU, for instance); - the need “not to avoid the debate on a common defence policy”; - identification of clear priorities, ranked in order of importance, in partnerships with Russia, India, China and others; - continuation of the efforts made by the Weimar group to improve the means of the CSDP (he highlighted that the work done to get a permanent planning and control capacity had brought only “a modest first step”, with activation of an operations centre for the EUCAP Nestor mission to strengthen regional maritime capabilities in the Horn of Africa, and that more progress was needed); - the launch of new “realistic” operations, though this cannot be the panacea, on condition that those missions that have achieved their objectives or are unable to achieve them are brought to an end; - increased effort on a comprehensive approach which genuinely brings together all the European instruments and the action implemented by the member states.
By way of a conclusion, Notre Europe President Antonio Vitorino said he was persuaded that, even though the European integration model was being questioned at the moment, the European Union has been able, in an extremely difficult situation, to show strength and has not lost all influence. The crisis, however, must make us “less patronising and more humble” in our relations with our partners on the international stage, he said. In external relations, the European External Action Service has just shown that “the institutions cannot replace political will”, though they remain useful in creating an environment and developing a culture which, ultimately, will allow this will to be exercised. As for defence, it is clear to see that there is a lack of political leadership, a lack of European cooperation (with reluctance on the part of the Germans to take part and the move back to bilateral cooperation, for example between the United Kingdom and France with the Lancaster House treaty) and a lack of coordination in the drastic cuts in defence budgets. All of this led Vitorino, who was a member of the European Convention and the Intergovernmental Conference on the Constitutional Treaty, to note that the Lisbon Treaty provides a way out with the possibility offered for a “pioneer group” to make progress by setting up a permanent structured cooperation. (OJ/transl.rt)