These
days, there are just three events that bring together all of the main
actors in international politics: the annual General Debate of the
United Nations General Assembly, G20 summits, and the Munich Security
Conference. That makes it all the more disappointing that the latest
MSC, which took place in mid-February, brought only one big idea – and
not a good one.
The MSC has long been a place not just to see and be
seen, but also to hear and be heard. Yet, at this year’s meeting, what
was not said seemed to speak louder than what was. Post-mortems of the
gathering amounted to something of an indictment of the increasingly
rudderless global order. Observers largely focused on how little in the
way of new ideas or innovative solutions there was, despite much
handwringing about the state of the world.
This stands in stark
contrast to years past. In 2015, the MSC helped to generate momentum for
the subsequent deal on Iran’s nuclear programme. Last year, it was at
the MSC that key members of US President Donald Trump’s administration
first met their global counterparts. In 2007, Russian President Vladimir
Putin famously used the MSC to present his stark worldview, in a speech
that presaged Russia’s interventions in Georgia and Ukraine.
At this
year’s conference, the one big idea was European Commission President
Jean-Claude Juncker’s call to shift authority over foreign and defence
policymaking in the European Union from the member states to the
Commission. But, while Juncker is right to assert that the EU should
take steps to ensure that it can act effectively in world politics, his
approach is deeply flawed.
To assume a leading role in the world, the
EU needs a culture and incentives that support genuine cohesion and
co-operative action. Rather than take the time to achieve that, Juncker
wants to take a short cut, arguing that, when it comes to foreign and
defence policies, the EU cannot be required always to achieve unanimity.
And
yet the EU is founded on an agreement that, in exchange for membership,
states relinquish a certain degree of sovereignty in some areas. But
foreign and defence policy are areas where states are supposed to retain
authority. Flippantly attempting to change that bargain eschews
political realities and threatens to set the European project on a
dangerous course.
Juncker’s proposal at the MSC echoes similar
recommendations on the single market, which he floated in his 2017 State
of the Union address. Both are part of a broader effort to shift power
from the European Council to the Commission – an effort that Juncker
buttressed by recently appointing his Svengali, Martin Selmayr, as the
Commission’s secretary-general, the body’s top civil-service job.
Now,
Selmayr – who, as Juncker’s chief of staff, has been compared to
figures like Machiavelli and Rasputin – will have far greater influence,
including over the selection of a new Commission president next year.
The way the appointment was carried out – shrouded in secrecy, in order
to avoid the involvement of member states – should do more than raise
eyebrows.
But such machinations are merely a symptom of a deeper
problem with Juncker’s approach. The problem is not that his approach
may succeed – a functioning United States of Europe would achieve a lot –
but rather that it cannot. Europeans are simply not prepared to cede
more sovereignty to the EU.
Since the global financial crisis
erupted a decade ago, Europe has been firmly in inter-governmental mode.
The last thing it needs is another grand-sounding scheme that it is not
in a position to carry out. Between the Economic and Monetary Union,
the Banking Union, and the Energy Union – each of which was launched
with great fanfare and is now adrift – the EU already has plenty of
those.
Rather than politely applauding castles in the sky, EU
officials and member governments need to work, with a frank and
realistic mindset, to build consensus on foreign and security issues.
This means not changing the rules at the top, but rather building
cohesion from below.
To ensure that this effort does not end up being
dragged out interminably, as so many EU discussions do, we should begin
with concrete objectives. The Permanent Structured Cooperation in the
field of defence – agreed by the European Council last December – is a
good place to start, with countries increasing, for example, joint
strategic planning at the European level. Inspired by German Chancellor
Angela Merkel’s recent proposal to tie EU funding to the acceptance of
migrants, member states should also work to create stronger incentives
for co-operation.
There is no question that it is difficult for 27
sovereign countries to act as one. But, as tempting as it may be, trying
to paper over differences or avoid dissent – let alone destroying the
compact at the core of the European project – will not make matters any
easier. The only way to get where Europe needs to go is through a
realistic and gradual effort to build unity. For Europe, it is this that
should be the key lesson of the MSC. – Project Syndicate
* Ana
Palacio, a former Spanish foreign minister and former senior vice
president of the World Bank, is a member of the Spanish Council of State
and a visiting lecturer at Georgetown University.
European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker addressing the Munich Security Conference last month.