borrell1_Michael Kappeler_picture alliance via Getty Images_nato eu soldiers

Puntare sulla forza dell'Europa

Feb 8, 2020 Josep Borrell

BRUXELLES – Gli sconvolgimenti geopolitici cui stiamo assistendo dimostrano quanto sia urgente che l'Unione europea rifletta sul suo ruolo in un contesto globale sempre più caratterizzato da politiche fondate sulla coercizione.

Viviamo in un mondo dominato dalla competizione geostrategica, in cui alcuni leader non esitano a ricorrere alla forza e a usare strumenti economici e di altro tipo come armi. Noi europei dobbiamo adeguare le nostre mappe mentali per confrontarci con il mondo quale è, e non quale speravamo che fosse. Se non vuole essere schiacciata dalla concorrenza tra USA e Cina, l'UE deve riapprendere il linguaggio del potere e riconoscere il proprio ruolo di attore geostrategico di primo piano.

A prima vista può sembrare difficile raccogliere questa sfida: dopo tutto, l'Unione è nata proprio per porre fine a politiche di potere. Ha promosso la pace e lo Stato di diritto separando il potere coercitivo dall'economia, dall'attività normativa e dal potere di persuasione. Eravamo partiti dal principio che multilateralismo, apertura e reciprocità costituissero il modello migliore non solo per il nostro continente, ma anche per il resto del mondo.

To continue reading, register now.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Enjoy unlimited access to the ideas and opinions of the world’s leading thinkers, including long reads, book reviews, topical collections, short-form analysis and predictions, and exclusive interviews; every new issue of the PS Quarterly magazine (print and digital); the complete PS archive; and more. Subscribe now to PS Premium.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 24 Comments on this article

Jose Gines Mora Mar 21, 2020

Too late Borrell, the Covid 19 will kill the remains of the UE. A pity, but you EU politicians are responsible for this sad end of a noble idea
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Vidvuds Beldavs Mar 8, 2020

High Representative Josep Borrell calls for the EU to relearn the language of power to survive and thrive in a world that is returning to power politics by combining the European Union's resources in a way that maximizes their geopolitical impact. This is a good step but ultimately a dead end. A world dominated by power politics will be a world similar to the 1930s. The vastly more powerful weapons that now exist could destroy industrial civilization unless a rules based order exists to which geopolitical actors comply.

The EU is an embodiment of a rules-based order among sovereign states that affirms the unifying principles of the United Nations charter. President Ursula van der Leyen affirms this charter in her charge to her College of Commissioners. UN Sustainable Development Goals underlie economic development policies of the Union.

The UN is the central institution that was created in response to the destruction of the two world wars. If the UN weakens the rule of law will weaken and power politics will become ascendant. A strong EU depends on the existence of a strong UN. The weakening of the U.S. commitment to the UN has seen a parallel weakening of the U.S. commitment to the transatlantic partnership with the current administration often treating the EU more as a competitor and less as a partner. President Trump encouraged Brexit and similar moves by other EU member states. Secretary of State Pompeo in his foreign policy address to the German Marshall Fund in December asked "Is the EU ensuring that the interests of countries and their citizens are placed before those of bureaucrats here in Brussels?" The EU bureaucracy is about 35,000 while the U.S. Federal government employs 2 million. There is a clear misunderstanding of how the EU works.

The EU does not need an EU army, but it needs much better coordination across the Union of the defense and space industries. NATO is a vital instrument for the coordination of command and control and of military doctrine but NATO's purpose does not include strengthening of the defense and space industrial base of Europe. That is an EU task. The EU, however can become a far more important element of UN security and crisis response efforts with a unified EU security and crisis response capacity under the High Representative coordinated with the UN Security Council. This could strengthen the Security Council and provide a way for the EU to amplify its "power" in the service of strengthening the rules based order.

An extremely critical need exists in outer space policy. The EU has a good history in this field with the Code of Conduct in Outer Space Affairs introduced by the EU in 2008. Space is now becoming an arena of strategic competition among many powers with an absence of agreement on governance. The space field is undergoing a paradigm shift from primarily government to increasing opportunities for private actors. However, a rules-based order has not been defined for governance of emerging commercial activities. Particularly notable is the absence of any agreement on the use of in situ resources on the Moon or other cosmic bodies. There is not even agreement on the forum where rules could be negotiated.
Overall the space community tends to work cooperatively. In 2007 the International Space Exploration Coordinating Group was formed to coordinate space missions. ISECG includes strategic competitors including the U.S. and China. However, nation states often create barriers to international cooperation. The EU could have a powerful positive effect to advance a rules based order in outer space that would lessen the threats of out power politics to the global order.
- Henk Crop Mar 9, 2020
  
  Vidvuds. I mostly agree with you. Where I do not agree is with your thrust in the UN as a kind of World Government. It is an important Institution that does useful things.
  However they are far remote from the average citizen and develop sometimes rather theoretical ideas.
  An example is the UN Marrakesh Pact. It was based on the assumption that migration is something of all times. The pact aims to transfer people from Africa to the EU, on the assumption that it is good for all. It does not recognise that building a safe and prosporous society takes many generations.
  I think the EU should be careful in transferring their responsibilties to the UN.
  I also hope that mr. Borrell is going to take the EU out of that pact asap.
  - Vidvuds Beldavs Mar 9, 2020
    
    The UN Charter is an expression of European / Western values as is the idea of sovereignty of nations. The culture and history of a people shape their identity which is a key element of sovereignty. The Global Compact for Migration affirms the sovereign rights of nation states to determine their migration policies. Smaller states, such as Latvia, have struggled to renew their national identity of decades of occupation. They have different problems than Germany whose national identity an language are not under threat and which has a need to expand its labor force to maintain economic growth.
    The treatment of migrants is a different issue than how many a country can absorb. The Compact defines standards for dealing with migrants that are consistent with the Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other instruments. I do not see the grounds for the EU to not affirm the Compact as long as the member states are not compelled to accept migrants that their citizens are not prepared to absorb. Sovereignty needs to be respected.
    Some of the criticisms of the Compact need to be considered as summarized here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Compact_for_Migration#Criticism . The idea that media could be defunded (shut-down) that espouse anti-migrant rhetoric needs particular attention because it raises the concern of criminalizing political criticism.
    
    A rules-based global order is far from being a world government. The acceptance of the rules enables sovereign parties to resolve disputes based on accepted principles. The alternative is power determines who is right and the vulnerable must submit or be discarded or destroyed. The UN Charter addresses the problem of parties that do not adhere to the rules of disputes that parties cannot resolve. Central to this is the UN Security Council. The veto powers of the permanent members erodes the effectiveness of the Security Council. A recent example is the Iran nuclear agreement JCPOA, which was authorized by UNSCR2231 and signed by all permanent members plus the EU. The U.S. withdrew from JCPOA and imposed unilateral sanctions with extraterritorial force that curtail trade with Iran that has no direct connection to U.S. companies or U.S. interests. The Iran dispute could lead to a far worse refugee crisis than the civil war in Syria if maximum pressure leads to the collapse of the Iran state. Another threat is that Iran might seek to accelerate nuclear weapons development to have a deterrent to actions such as maximum pressure if that would be seen as posing an existential threat to the survival of Iran. For the EU it is very high priority that Iran not become a nuclear weapons power because unlike the U.S. which is a vast ocean away, Iran is in the EU neighborhood. What kind of state could emerge in Iran after continued external pressure cannot be predicted, but it might be far worse than the Iran that successfully negotiated the JCPOA.
    - Henk Crop Mar 10, 2020
      
      Vidvuds. You are taking too much theory. Many UN/EU laws were made after WW2 and are outdated. They did not take into account the huge population explosion in Africa and elsewhere. These laws cannot be maintained without the EU being overrun and disappear.
      In many EU cities the immigrant population comprises 50 % from 150 countries.
      It leads to housing shortage, increasing crime and poverty. In many countries authorities have lost control, mainly because of UN/EU regulations.
      We need regulations that are effective, protective and are made by politicians who can be held accountable. And not by regulations made under supervision of foreign millionaires and NGO pressure groups.
      
      As far as the Marrakesh Pact goes. It only facilitates the migrants, but the migrant countries were not made responsible for taking back their illegal
      citizen. Examples; Marocco, Irak, Iran, Algeria, Ivory Coast.
      These migrants cause a lot of trouble: theft, robbery, breaking in houses and rape.
      
      We can agree that Iran does not need a Nuclear bomb. Very soon other countries will have one. But this JCOP deal was not a solution, only a postponement.
      
      It all demonstrates the naivity and weakness of the EU foreign policy.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop Mar 4, 2020

" Speak softly, but carry a big stick" is a quotation by the former US president Theodore Roosevelt.
Yesterday EU Commission President, mrs. von der Leye, spoke tough about Turkey's behavior.
I hope the EU is also going to show a stick, otherwise Turkey is invited for some more misbehaving.
Mr. Borrell intends to develop a strategy for Africa.
However, we need more urgently a strategy on Turkey. Turkey does not behave as a friend anymore.
- A question is what Turkey's role is in NATO. Should article 5 also apply to Turkey ?
As an Islamic State it does not share the fundamental values of the Western members anymore.
- Turkey's security service interferes too much in EU countries.
- The way Turkey tries to dump refugees in the EU is unacceptable.
- Turkey was supposed to be a bridge between the EU and the ME. Instead it has become a bridge from the ME to the EU.
- Turkey has decided to buy Russian weapons.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop Mar 4, 2020

To apply power in the EU, you want to do that on the basis of the law and impartial judges.
However according to a recent investigation ( by the European Centre for Law and Justice ) this is being corrupted at the European Court of Human Right ( ECHR ) by NGO's.
At least 22 of the 100 judges who have served since 2009 are former staff or leaders of seven NGO's.
Of these seven NGO's the Open Society Network ( of Soros ) had the most (12 ) judges placed. The Open Society Society ( OSF) also financed the other NGO's.
Over 10 years 88 problematic cases have been identified.
The OSF of the American billionaire Soros, obviously does not hesitate to corrupt the EU's legal processes.
Mr. Soros has been know to encourage migration to the EU and sympathise with Islam.
The former EU Commission President Juncker welcomed him in his office.

Whenever mr. Borrell wants to apply power, either by the Militairy or Border guards, the NGO's will look over his schoulder.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop Mar 1, 2020

Borrell fails to mention the biggest weakness of the EU leadership, that is it's lack of instinct to survive as a Western Culture. A culture which stood at the basis of human rights, democracy and the industrial revolution and which it has exported that all over the World.

- It fails to protect it's fundamental rights. You may consider 'democracy' and 'freedom of religion' great values. But when you hold on to these principle when you are faced by mass-migration, these great values are threatened and will finally disappear.
- It is out of touch with demography. Many EU members have a birthrate of 1,4 per woman. Many surrounding countries have a much higher birthrate, of up to 7.0.
- It fails to recognise the cultural divide between Islam and the Western World.
Borrell wants to interfere in Africa and the Mediterrranean countries and he wants more arms. It is an ambition which is deadly for the EU as well as these countries.
Most western interferences have ended in disaster, because they did not understand Islam. Iraq, Libya, Nation Building, Afghanistan.
The EU/US also overestimate their ability to achieve successful change.
- The EU is also too much guided by (Christian) altruism. That is a great human trait.
However when applied to international politics, the EU is simply unable to make a difference. The problems are too big, too complex or take too much time to solve.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Nagornyak Ivan Feb 13, 2020

Very important political signals from EU High Representative J. Borrell for Ukraine and Eastern partners.
1) Europe starts to think in the categories of geostrategic competition.
2) The EU will more actively use its economic and trade instruments to achieve its foreign policy goals.
3) There are calls for more activity in the neighborhood, but almost no word on the situation in Ukraine and about policy towards Russia.

What can we expect from this?
1) The strength of the EU has always been in promoting rules, fair trade and democratic values. Therefore, the transition from the categories of liberalism to the "Realpolitik" categories can lead to unknown consequences.
Personally, I do not see any prerequisites today for building a common EU policy on key issues based on Realpolitik. Because a common position is always a compromise for the sake of a higher purpose. And the EU's geostrategic power for the citizens national Member States is too vague a goal to concede their national interests. The current state of European integration and the growth of right-wing movements can serve as confirmation of this thesis.
2) When analyzing the new Neighborhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI), I didn't notice any significant strengthening of the economic instruments in the neighborhood. The same External Investment Plan is more about Africa, as Borrel points out in the article.
However, if inflation rates and the percentage increase in allocations are estimated, then the difference in the NDICI for neighborhood countries does not seem too large.
3) Geostrategy categories imply that the EU will compete with other actors.
The EU has always reiterated and still reiterates that the Eastern Partnership Initiative is by no means an instrument of struggle against Russia. If so, either the EU should be more ambitious in the process of revising the Eastern Partnership policy, or the EU geostrategy ends where starts Russia's geostrategy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Slawomir Sierakowski Feb 12, 2020

I am happy to read the serious political manifesto of The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy here on this website. One of the EU’s key problems was the silence and de facto absence of The High Representative in the EU, which was perhaps even more tangible inside than outside. The first mission to be accomplished is to make sure this post is treated seriously inside. Only then will it be treated seriously and have an impact outside. This requires political and medial rather than diplomatic skills. I believe Josep Borell has the necessary experience to undertake this task.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Volker Perthes Feb 10, 2020

I like Borrell’s article and approach. Learning the language of power (I would probably rather say the grammar of it, but this is purely semantic) is indeed needed. And also the important statement that the EU has more power (or instruments to wield influence) than it is aware of, or prepared to use. Three brief thoughts from my side:

First, the main question unanswered (in the article, and you can’t expect it to be all answered in one op-ed) is how actually to use these instruments in line with our priorities. Implement the arms embargo on Libya: Right. But, short of sending troops to patrol the airspace and control Libya’s land border, which I don’t think we can do. Maritime borders: yes, we can, but this would at best prevent arms deliveries to one side. What kind of pressure are we prepared to use for this priority? Hard pressure on Egypt and the UAE? Again, Borrell is right: we would have strong, mainly economic instruments in our arsenal. But to use them would be a hard choice between different priorities.

Second, also about our instruments: Borrell rightly deplores issue-linkage by the US, China, etc., but the question we would need to explore is: if that is the mode of action that the great powers use, do we have to learn from it? Particularly given that the EU would be well positioned to do that. Access to the Single Market is a powerful instrument. Would we use that to achieve political/geopolitical goals such as (to stay with the same example) dissuading Egypt from delivering arms to Libya? Worth a discussion, I think.

Third, Borrell also rightly warns of dispersion (trying to do a little bit of everything). I agree. But does that in essence mean to clearly set our priorities in Europe’s immediate strategic environment? What if partners in Southeast Asia ask us to demonstrate commitment to their independence? Partners who are as concerned as we are about more assertive Chinese actions, and (again as us Europeans) don’t want to be dragged into binary choices (such as restricting trade with China if you rely on US security guarantees), and partners we also urgently need to maintain a rules-based international order? Are we prepared (this question actually goes more to nation states, particularly my own, than to the EU) to send the symbolic frigate to show military presence (it would be symbolic, we won’t have a German, French, or EU Pacific Fleet that could really deter China regionally, let alone fight in that region)? Or is that dispersion, particularly because it is symbolic. And we would rather use the frigate to control arms proliferation in the Mediterranean, reassure partners in the Baltics or the Black Sea, or guard tanker traffic in the Persian Gulf.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop Feb 10, 2020

To-day I read on Politico: " African Union sets goals for free movement of goods, services and PEOPLE". To warm the hearts of the EU. "
Considering that in 30 years time the population of Africa will be 2500 million, while the EU population will then still be 500 million and that many like to come to the EU. We have a strategic question right here with nearby Africa.
While many of the Europhiles see threats by Trump, Putin and China, they embrace Africa as a sister continent and a partner. Some, like VP Timmermans, even want to send boats to facilitate illegal migration.
Power means not only soldiers but also common sense and clear deals and regulations.
- Jonathan Engel Feb 12, 2020
  
  But but but Mr Crop common sense is not a Key Success Variable for a career in the EU... Brussels values "the vision thing", and an ability to chose the best restaurant far more....
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Feb 10, 2020

Josep Borrell, the new EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, has a reputation for being direct or undiplomatic, while he was Spain’s top diplomat. He described the EU foreign affairs council as “more a valley of tears than a centre of decision-making.” And he lamented Europe’s “ostrich politics” when it came to migration and demographics. Now as the new EU diplomat-in-chief, his mission is to strengthen the bloc’s role in the world.
The author says the EU must be capable of navigating the choppy waters of “raw power politics,” in which ruthless leaders – Putin, Trump, Xi Jinping – have no qualms about using military force, weaponising trade policies and other instruments – data streams and technologies – to achieve their political goals, the EU “must relearn the language of power” and be more assertive, seeing itself as a “top-tier geostrategic” player in a multipolar world.
It is crucial that the EU can single out the challenges it faces, and deal with “the world as it is, not as we hoped it would be.” The bloc – through its political ties, economic clout, security initiatives or technical expertise – is well-positioned to play a positive if not indispensable role in the ongoing US-China rivalry, instead of becoming a loser on the sidelines. This would require a departure from the idea that the EU was created “to abolish power politics.”
Initially the bloc’s goal was to build a peaceful, united and prosperous Europe, securing the rule of law, “by separating hard power from economics, rule-making, and soft power.” For decades “multilateralism, openness, and reciprocity comprised the best model” not only for Europe but also for the rest of the world. Today, Europe is facing a much “harsher reality” and it must adapt to new challenges and threats to its security.
According to the author, Europe’s “problem is not a lack of power. The problem is the lack of political will for the aggregation of its powers to ensure their coherence and maximize their impact.” The bloc can capitalise on “trade and investment policy, financial power, diplomatic presence, rule-making capacities, and growing security and defense instruments,” that offer the EU “levers of influence” in foreign policy that match its status as the world’s biggest trading bloc.
To start with, the EU needs to be more strategic, and more united in its approach to external relations. Indeed, “with unanimity rules, it is difficult to reach agreements on divisive issues, and the risk of paralysis is always present. Member states must realize that using their vetoes weakens not just the Union, but also themselves. One cannot proclaim to want a stronger European role in the world without investing in it.”
Apart from addressing domestic grievances and crises in Europe’s backyard, the author identifies “two other key priorities.”
First, Africa seems one of the EU’s top priorities in foreign policy. Days after the new president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, took office on 1 December, she travelled to Africa. Economic development could help stem the flow of economic migrants. The author says: “We need to think big and use our policies on trade, innovation, climate change, cyberspace, security, investment, and migration to give substance to our rhetoric about being equal partners.”
Second, “we must get serious about devising credible approaches to dealing with today’s global strategic actors: the United States, China, and Russia. While different in many ways, all three are practicing issue linkage and power politics. Our response should be differentiated and nuanced, but clear-eyed and ready to defend EU values, interests, and agreed international principles.”
Perhaps the author would have more luck than his predecessor, Federica Mogherini, who faced criticism for steering clear of some tricky issues, such as EU’s relations with Russia, Turkey and other rogue states. While she wanted to avoid conflict, others did not find it useful.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mark Leonard Feb 9, 2020

Inspiring piece by Josep Borrell. Europeans too often act as if they are playthings stuck in the middle between two great power blocs in China and America. Borrell shows that Europeans have the resources to be a bloc themselves if they overcome the psychology of weakness. He shows member states that they will be judged by their ability to hang together behind more realistic policies on Libya, Iran, the Balkans and Africa. But the foundation of all this must be developing more tough-minded policies and the tools to link the EU's big market, diplomatic clout and spending with common policies in different areas.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop Feb 9, 2020

The author focusses on applying more power in international relations.
However would it not be more effective to invest in international relations by: knowledge about the other party, by respect for the interest of the other party, by shaping creative relations and by considering the cost/benefits involved to the EU member ?
The EU has a bad track-record in international relations. One example:

The EU migration policy is:
- Unrealistic. In a World growing by 83 million p.a., of which 96 % in developing countries, it is not feasable to offer each migrant: free housing, free food, free education, free medicare and free pension, in the EU. With such numbers it is a suicidal policy.
- Treacherous. The EU has made such regulations that the EU population is required to accept any immigrant on it's soil. Refugees will have to be legally admitted. The illegal migrants are so hard to deport that they also stay. The EU citizen is not asked for approval, but have to pay for it all. Only the immigrant can decide if he/she wishes to stay in the EU.
- Inhumane. To integrate a non-western immigrant in the EU cost about Euro 100,000.- per person. For this money you could feed and educate a village in a developing country, where they live on Euro 1,80 per day.
- Disastreous. The money spent on migration cannot be spent on helping countries to develop sustainable societies. So overpopulation develops, with many young people without a future, increasing risk of social conflict.
- Unmanageable. The UNHCR has 63 million registered refugees (2/3 from Africa and ME).
Western countries cannot absorb such numbers without disrupting their societies. No language, inadequate education, other culture.
- Bizarre. Last year the Marrakesh Pact was signed. It required that EU countries were to treat immigrants as princes. Freedom of the press (fundamental right) were to be curtialed. What was expected of the attending developing countries, such as accepting their illegal countymen ? Nothing.
- Jonathan Engel Feb 10, 2020
  
  It seems to me that the migration policy is not only "unrealistic", it's also the area where the citizen of EUrope is most alienated from Europe's "political classes". The Citizen has been entirely disregarded by people who take on the habits of the the "ever more distant union". That this fellow can say that Africa is Europe's sister continent is INSANE. If Europe has a sister it is the American Continent (North and South). Spain, from which Mr. Borrell hails was essentially created by the Reconquista, but maybe the fellow missed school that month.
  
  Running off to Iran to parlay with fellows who say everyday, and every month, that they will destroy the US, clearly a sister nation for us, is repugnant.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Sergio BULIAN Feb 9, 2020

I agree. But the bitter reality is that in Europe there is too much talk and few concrete facts. It seems to see an empire in decline.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
P. Kamath Feb 8, 2020

The learned author says,” To avoid being the losers in today’s US-China competition, we must relearn the language of power and conceive of Europe as a top-tier geostrategic actor...”. But he doesn’t seem to notice the presence of other geopolitical actors from Asia, M.East, Africa, or Latin America! What about understanding and learning about other’s sensitivities, aspirations, hopes, struggles .........etc. Is there a time and place for cooperation? Imagine the scenario of a marathon race. There is a time to carry the torch and then you hand over it the others at an opportune time !

Power politics alone to remain “ Numero Uno” to win, ultimately will fail.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop Feb 8, 2020

I fully agree with the author that the EU members must cooperate in applying power politics. Central coordination can be usefull.
However there is one step to be taken before discussing powerpolitics.
That is the existence of Europe as a people and it's values.
Just a few examples:
- The US is portrayed as a threat. Yes, they like competition but they are also the partner that protects our freedom. Besides: the EU and US ( together 800 million people, in a world of 7 billion) share values on democracy and human rights.
- The African population will be growing from 1250 million to 2500 million in 30 years.
The author calls it sister continent. But it is hard to see how the EU can anywhere cope with a challenge of such magnitude and complexity.
- In the EU ( Germany, Italy, others) the birthrate is too low to survive as a people.
- The EU is proud of it's basic values: democracy, rule of law, freedom of speech, equality of women. However when admitting massively migrants from other cultures it does nothing to protect these values.

Perhaps it would be useful to present a tour d' horizon, to see what threats of the EU are.
I must say that I am not very impressed by the EU sofar on the international theatre.
You could characterize it as: very naive, slow, ineffective, overestimation of its own power, underestimation of the hostile and complexety of the outside world.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/UZNbi12it

Puntare sulla forza dell'Europa

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Puntare sulla forza dell'Europa

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification