solana104_JaapArriensNurPhotoviaGettyImages_EUPolandhatman

La Europa de mañana

May 22, 2019 Javier Solana

MADRID – Cada cinco años, la Unión Europea tiene una cita con el espejo: las elecciones al Parlamento Europeo nos sirven para contemplar el semblante de nuestro proyecto común y hacer balance del paso del tiempo. Los comicios que se avecinan, sin embargo, son especiales. Se trata de las primeras elecciones desde la crisis de los refugiados, desde el referéndum sobre el Brexit y desde la elección de Donald Trump en Estados Unidos. En estos años convulsos, marcados por las tensiones y las inseguridades, no hemos apartado la mirada del espejo en ningún instante. Con esta llamada a las urnas, el reflejo adquirirá la nitidez que tanto hemos echado en falta.

Las elecciones europeas suelen catalogarse como votaciones “de segundo orden”. La escasa participación en las mismas —que ha ido cayendo de forma ininterrumpida desde 1979— parece apoyar la tesis de que la ciudadanía europea no les otorga la importancia que merecen. Tres meses antes de las elecciones, tan solo el 38% de los ciudadanos sabía que estas tendrán lugar en el mes de mayo, y únicamente el 5% conocía las fechas exactas. El siguiente dato resulta igualmente revelador: el candidato del Partido Popular Europeo a presidir la Comisión, el alemán Manfred Weber, era conocido a un mes de las elecciones por solamente un 26% de los alemanes.

¿Debemos inferir de estos datos que los europeos se sienten indiferentes respecto a la Unión? Las encuestas dibujan un panorama más halagüeño. Según el último Eurobarómetro, casi siete de cada diez europeos —dejando a los británicos al margen— consideran que sus respectivos países se han beneficiado de la integración. Esta cifra es la más alta desde 1983, cuando empezó a formularse la pregunta. La mayoría de británicos, dicho sea de paso, concuerda ahora con esta opinión.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

US President-elect Joe Biden may have promised a “return to normalcy,” but the truth is that there is no going back. The world is changing in fundamental ways, and the actions the world takes in the next few years will be critical to lay the groundwork for a sustainable, secure, and prosperous future.

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world’s foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

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

0 Comments on this paragraph, 8 in all 8 Comments on this article

j. von Hettlingen May 26, 2019

Amid the ongoing European elections, Javier Solana reminds of the EU’s role as a guarantor of peace and prosperity since World War II. No doubt, the European integration had been one of the great successes of the 20th century, binding together historically hostile nations in an ever closer economic union committed to a common set of democratic values. A concerted approach to this integration by France and Germany was crucial to its success.
The author says, today the EU “must foster additional sources of legitimacy if it is to appeal to today's post-postwar generation.” Indeed, this generation that came of age after the war, no longer have the same inhibition that many of their parents and grandparents once felt about far-right nationalism and wars. They are increasingly willing to disrupt the current order, saying it has not been good for them, and they do not benefit from it.
This political “estrangement” that set in across Europe, “affecting all levels of governance” has much to do with the 2004 enlargement that brought new members from the former Soviet satellites into the EU fold. “Eastern Europeans tend to trust the political system less,” because it takes years for them to adapt to liberal democracy. Hence, “it is not surprising that they turn out to vote in smaller numbers, both in European and national elections.”
The author says, “institutional disaffection and low turnout are also pervasive among young Europeans in general, despite the fact that they are more pro-European than the average.” Unfortunately the EU has not fully recovered from the 2008 financial crisis that dogged the Eurozone for years. Several member states (Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Cyprus) were in trouble, with four needing to be rescued – with strings attached. For many, especially the young, the years of austerity measures meant economic hardship.
Social inequality, wealth gap and discrepancies within the EU had created this “north-south divide” with the affluent north bailing out the cash-strapped south during the economic crisis. Despaired, people took to the streets, as they suffered spending cuts, high taxes and repeatedly slashed salaries and pensions, after enjoying years of social largesse. Populists on the left and right capitalise on people’s grievances to make political gains, putting the blame on globalisation and immigration, which is not the “issue that most concerns Europeans today.”
The thorny issue - integration - remains the bloc’s Achilles’ heel. The eastern enlargement has not bolstered Europe’s political unity to reflect its global influence, and the east/west divide will further diminish the EU’s “role as a multilateral actor in a world increasingly marked by great-power competition.” Besides, “faith in the EU has been severly shaken” by the myriad of crises, with the rise of far-right populism being the EU’s Trojan horse.
The author says, “although member states cannot evade their responsibilities, European institutions must do more to promote cohesion through a new social contract, which should cover everything from technology-driven labor-market disruptions to environmental sustainability.” It is easier said than done.
If the EU were to survive the disruptive politics of far-right populists, it needs leaders with vision. There is little room for “nostalgia” and there is also no return to the “world of yesterday.” Populists are merely a bunch of opportunists with no sense of history. Often they are incapable of governing, while loathing the establishment run by technocrats. The are good at demagoguery, offering simple solutions to complex problems. Europe’s future lies in the hands of those who are bold enough to reform the EU and address the malaise that is a thorn in many citizens’ side.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Morgan May 24, 2019

The enlargement of the EU to the ten post Soviet countries was a political decision to keep them away from Russian influence. They are intrinsically different than the western Europeans as they are not used to a cosmopolitan world as they were locked behind the Iron Curtain. They like all of us are right to be deeply concerned about Middle East migration.
- Henk Crop May 25, 2019
  
  These East European leaders bother about their own country.
  However the, cosmopolitan, West European leaders focus too much on other countries.
  They use taxs money and sacrifice their own societies addressing issues in the rest of the world.
  Attempting to solve problems which are often beyond their influence.
  In the process often making matters worse.
  Examples: the population explosion, interference in Lybia, Iraq and Syria, interferences in Afghanistan and Africa.
  These policies are justified to the citizen by the behavior and inconsistent motivation of which Solana is giving here an example.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop May 24, 2019

The author writes that "the issue that most concerns Europeans today is not immigration, but the economy." However in the report he refers to ( Spring Eurobarometer 2019 ) Immigration and Terrorism is in the top 5 priorities ( graph 56).
So Immigration remains an issue of major concern.
If the people are not yet concerned today they will be faced with immigration in the nearby future.
Around the Southern Border of the EU, in Africa and the ME, a population explosion is taking place. Just Africa will grow by 1250 million people in the next 35 years.
Such a high growthrate will inevitably lead to more famine, violent conflicts and migration.
Also this growth will be to a considerable extent in Moslim cultures, that have values which are incompatible to those in the west. They have trouble integrating in the West.
These developments are a threat to Europe.
Very slowly our politicians have begun to realise that limits have to be set on migration.
However measures are still based on nice moral principles, which cannot be maintained when the figures are taken into account.
The UNHCR has over 60 million registered refugees, 2/3 from the ME/Africa.
In some EU cities over 50 % of their population are immigrants, from over 150 Nationalities. This undermines cohesion, increases crime and the risk of civil war.
EU politicians, except in Eastern Europe, fail to make clear what their policy for the future is and discuss that with their voters.
Solana gives a good example of the kind of response the EU elite has on this issue.
Deny, ignore or belittle the facts. Hide behind international regulations. Disgrace the concerned citizen, they are xenophobe, nationalist, populist, etc.
Of course nothing gets solved, but the problems will not go away.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Brian Shannon May 23, 2019

Hi Javier,

"It is still essential to stress the EU’s role as a guarantor of peace and prosperity following World War II." -- Javier Solana

Perhaps you missed all those signs in postwar Europe that said, "You are leaving the American sector."

Those signs weren't there for show, it meant that from 1945 and every year through until 2000, the United States was the main "guarantor of peace and prosperity following World War II."

As the EU hadn't been formed until 1993, it's impossible that it could be the "guarantor of peace and prosperity following World War II." (!)

Really, don't break your arms 'patting yourselves on the back' for things you haven't accomplished! (Not even close)

Even in the years from 1993-2000, it's a good thing the Americans hung around (at their own cost) to defend the EU (and the rest of Europe) until the EU, with NATO assisting (and don't forget that NATO is mostly paid-for by America) were able to (mostly) handle European defence alone.

In fact, the EU still enjoys a massive American presence far beyond America's required NATO commitments in their role as the "guarantor of peace and prosperity following World War II." (ahem)

You can still find some of those signs if you look hard enough: "You are leaving the American sector."

I believe I've made my point.

As always, very best regards, JBS
- John Brian Shannon May 23, 2019
  
  Hi Javier,
  
  Your comment; "But today’s EU must foster additional sources of legitimacy if it is to appeal to today's post-postwar generation," is brilliant by the way.
  
  They could begin by paying their fair share of the required 2% of GDP NATO commitment, and they could help themselves by spending most of their foreign aid on countries in their own neighborhood. That way, if the money is spent well, all the countries that surround continental Europe (whether a land border or across the Med or across the Black Sea) will remain on peaceful terms with the EU and internal divisions in those countries won't cause any problems for the EU.
  
  Best regards, JBS
  - David Morgan May 24, 2019
    
    I agree fully with your comment, and for once your president is right on something, EU countries need to spend more on defence, and the issue is not really the colour of the skin of people coming into Europe, well west Europe at least, but their religion. Which is a clear and present danger.
    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.
Mizo Mizo May 23, 2019

A good corollary to this argument presented on Quillette: https://quillette.com/2019/05/20/identity-islam-and-the-twilight-of-liberal-values-a-review/
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/XfvidIpes

Cookies and Privacy

La Europa de mañana

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

La Europa de mañana

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification