Energy crisis, spiralling inflation, dependence on external powers, war on our doorstep, climate damage, rise of Islamism, daily insecurity, apathy on the part of the citizens, anti-democratic forces, plummeting birth rates, evaporation of values: those who believe that Europe is going to hell in a hand cart have any number of examples to choose from to back up their argument.
There is a huge body of scientific literature that can explain the decline of empires or civilisations – after the event. These declines result from the conjunction of several factors: wars, loss of territory, natural disasters, epidemics, famine, exhaustion of basic resources, collapse of internal cohesion, depopulation, etc...
Older still is literary or philosophical output announcing the decadence of one or more nations. The irrevocable decline is thus decreed, prophesied on the basis of things considered negative by the values of the time: blending of races and religions, repeated violence, poor economic indicators, demographic tendencies, adverse effect of technologies, loss of international influence, collapse of traditional values and nostalgia for the ‘good old days”… Assisted by the social networks, a belief in decline is no longer the preserve of authors of properly substantiated works, it is available to everybody and encouraged by the popularity of the conspiracy theory. Even among intellectuals, it is fashionable to predict the demise of the free and reasonable man and woman, the demise of Europe, even the demise of the human race.
Yet there are also educated types who are standing up to denounce this disaster-mongering in all its forms and calling for action against all that is wrong with the world – and it is true that the challenges facing it at the moment are more critical and greater in number than ever before. The State of the Union speech made by the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, before the European Parliament on 14 September certainly contained some of this positivity: this is its great merit (see EUROPE 13021/3).
Europe has certainly lost its colonial empires, but only the most inveterate reactionary could interpret this as a sign of decline. Furthermore, the economic and demographic weight of the West is undeniably falling throughout the world: a planetary rebalancing that is written in the stars. But if the star of the West is waning rather than waxing, this can also be put down to mistakes made by its leaders, more the American ones than the European counterparts. Far less normal is the regression we have seen in recent years of democracy throughout the world, even within the European Union, fronted by well-known ‘champions’ (see EUROPE 13021/4 and 13022/1). It is not enough to sit and wait for the inevitable collapse of the totalitarian regimes: global solidarity between democracies is required, increasing in effectiveness. We hope to count the India of tomorrow among this group and to be able to keep the United States of America beyond November 2024.
In this changing and changed landscape, a reference to Europe’s strength only looks paradoxical. There is no need to refer to its multi-secular heritage, to Leonardo da Vinci, Newton or Beethoven. Let us focus on what has happened in the last 70 years. There are six criteria that can help us to measure this strength, which lies first and foremost in our people: capacity for resilience, a critical spirit, scientific-mindedness, creativity, the capacity for solidarity and attractiveness.
The capacity for resilience has been demonstrated in many forms: the courage of the survivors of extermination camps, the rapid reconstruction of countries devastated by war (Germany, Poland, France etc...), the dizzying renaissance of democratic Spain after Franco, the swift transformation of the former USSR countries, the dignity of those affected by violent clashes in Northern Ireland and the Balkans, the exemplary bravery of survivors of Islamic terrorist attacks and the way the whole of Europe faced the pandemic.
A critical spirit is in Europe’s DNA. The history of critical reasoning, theorised over in Germany, destroyed by Nazism and then resurrected once again speaks volumes. Everywhere in Europe, critical thinking is at the centre of our universities, newspapers and magazines. The youth revolt of 1968 and dissidence movements in Central and Eastern Europe are clear examples of this. There is criticism of outdated ways of life and doing things, corrupt political leaders, abusive capitalists, affronts to human dignity. Directly or otherwise, therefore, it is a driving force for change. The strength of criticism is that governments can and must apply it to themselves, if necessary reviewing the institutional systems in force, including that of the European Union.
Scientific-mindedness is the intellectual driving force of Europe and represents the very best of the continent distributed to the four corners of the world. The greatest strides in scientific progress were taken here. Europe produces 30% of the world’s scientific publications and although the national research budgets could be higher, the adventure of European integration has, from the outset, been closely linked to science (Euratom Treaty of 1957, creation of the Joint Research Centre, introduction of multi-annual framework programmes, including the current Horizon Europe with its annual envelope of some 100 billion euros). Its current priorities are the Green Deal, energy redeployment and health. Scientific thought also contains the antidote to ridiculous conspiracy theories. It validates, if validation were needed, the unquestionable importance of public investment in learning.
European creativity is enormous. It is apparent in the field of culture, even more so since the reunification of the continent. Our masterpieces have made Europe the world’s number one tourist destination. But creativity also thrives in technological innovation, itself born of scientific progress, in the construction of our homes and public spaces (squares, schools, railway stations, museums, etc.), in the social organisation of our businesses and our cities. It comes through in trans-national aeronautical and space policy achievements. European creativity is even expressed in politics: the founding treaties and the creation of the single currency are major lasting manifestations of it. Anything is possible when courage and creativity come together: see the recovery plan Next Generation EU. The European Battery Alliance, the mass production of semiconductors and the European Hydrogen Bank announced in the state of the union speech (see EUROPE 13021/5) are born of the same creative spirit, at the service of our independence and decarbonisation.
The capacity for solidarity is, happily, not an exclusively European prerogative, but it has shaped much of its culture. Social security was introduced in Europe after the war. The Rhineland model was, obviously, not imported from the United States. The Community method itself, wisely managing tensions, has produced new forms of solidarity: budget, legislation and common programmes are the expression of this. Historical forms of solidarity are deployed with the developing countries as well as through emergency humanitarian aid, in the EU and beyond it (see EUROPE 13021/7). Our populations also boast this capacity, showing solidarity when welcoming those who came from behind the Iron Curtain or contact with democrats of the East, for instance during events in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Even more solidarity was very recently shown with the huge outpouring of European support for Ukrainians fleeing war. And of course, the entire EU’s solidarity with Ukraine continues, despite the discomfort to us and unjustified criticism (see EUROPE 13021/2). And it is, once again, solidarity with the most vulnerable of our citizens that will inspire the ministers to decide policy measures in response to spiralling energy prices (see EUROPE 13021/1 and EUROPE 13022/12) – hopefully before the winter.
The capacity to attract is specific to the European Union. It has reached a level that the founding fathers could never have dreamt of. It is rooted in our success, our lifestyle, our freedoms. Do I need to list the accession applications since the 1960s and right up to spring of this year? Does anybody need reminding that the prospect of joining the EU toppled dictatorships in Greece, Spain and Portugal, that those fleeing the ‘communist paradise’ invariably came to a Europe of freedom and that it was to the European Union that the governments of the states of Central and Eastern Europe turned once they became independent, to be followed by those of the Western Balkans? And it is this attractiveness that prompts thousands of people to cross deserts and oceans, in inhuman conditions, to knock on our door, without even knowing what kind of welcome awaits them. A migration policy that is more closed than open, an enlargement policy that is more closed than open does not reflect the moral level of this attractiveness; undermining it would, eventually, cost Europe one of its great strengths.
Incidentally, when we talk of strength, thoughts automatically turn to military strength. But this is an area in which creativity and solidarity are sadly lacking. It was a lasting mistake to reject the European Defence Community in 1954. Subsequently, the European Community would turn its back on this challenge: had it not already achieved lasting peace, at least on its soil? And in any case, France did not want European Defence and there was always NATO in the event of war anyway. Could a Copernican revolution be brewing? In March of this year, the Strategic Compass was adopted (see EUROPE 12919/3 and EUROPE 12926/1). But in the speech of 14 September, it was not considered worthy of mention. The time von der Leyen spent talking about the death of the Queen of England (a matter that has no bearing on state of the union) could have been used on European Defence, this ‘seventh strength’ that will shore up the other six. This great omission from an otherwise excellent address – dominated, moreover, by references to the war – is concerning to say the least. A silence of this kind is astonishing from a self-proclaimed ‘geopolitical’ Commission. And it gives the naysayers even more ammunition…
Renaud Denuit