With the US crippled by Wall Street’s collapse, this should be Europe’s moment. Yet the EU’s role in the world is weakening. It is listened to less today than it was 15 years ago. As Singapore’s Kishore Mahbubani, a prominent Asian diplomat and academic, puts it: “Europeans are irrelevant to the world’s great issues, obsessed by internal process, culturally arrogant, craven in the face of the US and blind to the rise of Asia.”
If Europe is to gain a more important role in global leadership, it must reverse its long-term economic decline. Consider the evidence of that decline:
Ownership: After centuries in which European corporations dominated the developing world, the trend is reversing. Indian, Middle Eastern and other investors are buying up European steel mills and carmakers. In coming years, watch out for China and Russia.
Exchange rates: When the dollar slumped a year ago and eroded European competitiveness still further, both the European-led IMF and the European Central Bank proved impotent. Instead, European leaders flew cap in hand to China to ask for support. While the dollar has risen recently against the euro, Europeans did not influence this.
Banks: When US and Swiss banks hit the wall, nobody approached Europe for support. Instead, bank leaders pleaded with the Middle East, Singapore and China to throw a lifeline. Once Europe’s own banks became infected, euroskeptic British leadership was needed to overcome French and German dithering. European institutions remained on the sidelines.
Of course, Europe’s growing irrelevance is not entirely self-inflicted. Emerging-market countries have increased their share of the world economy, giving them a more important voice in international relations. But it is not others that prevent euro-zone growth from climbing above 3 percent, or that are causing the EU-15’s share of the world economy to dwindle, from 19.5 percent of global GDP in 1994 to 16 percent last year.
Despite its Lisbon agenda, EU enlargement and the coming of the euro, Europe’s overall economic performance has not improved because it has neglected many basic and everyday issues. Three examples come to mind.
First, the EU still spends far more of its resources subsidizing declining sectors than preparing for the future. Although research funding is rising, it accounts for just 4.7 percent of EU spending, compared with 31.7 percent for agriculture.
Second, Europe has failed to introduce an independent European Research Council to ensure that funding is allocated on the basis of scientific merit. Too much of the money earmarked for research goes to prestige projects with limited or no connection to science, like Galileo or the European Institute of Technology.
Third, European resources are fragmented and this hampers European competitiveness. The weak and diluted EU Takeover Directive, adopted after more than a decade of debate, fails to facilitate the cross-border mergers within Europe that are needed to build world champions. Company-based social benefits in some leading European countries weaken corporate flexibility by locking in labor.
Yet there are a number of areas of consensus where the EU can push ahead. Enlargement has made far-away countries our neighbors. They need access to our markets, and we should not turn them away. We should expand the European single market to boost growth and avoid new divisions. This means leveraging unglamorous tools like tariffs, industrial standards, market regulation and cooperation in research and education in our relations with countries like Russia and Egypt, just as we have done with Norway and Switzerland.
Many citizens believe that European cooperation benefits only the privileged and that workers and pensioners face higher taxes because cross-border integration has helped the rich find ways to avoid paying their fair share on interest and capital gains. Common rules to eliminate cross-border tax evasion — and thus erase this perception — should become a priority. Participation in a common financial market should not be allowed for free riders who refuse to share information. Cooperation with havens like Liechtenstein or Monaco should be ruled out unless they accept that within the common market, all citizens must pay taxes where they live, according to the rules of that country.
Policy coherence within the EU must also be improved. The motivation to implement further reforms of the internal market has weakened, leading to a situation in which even decisions by EU leaders at their European Council meetings can go ignored.
Too often, special interests are allowed to overrule common European interests. Europe needs to curb subsidies for old and dying industries and to invest the money saved in future-oriented sectors.
The last thing Europe needs is to reinforce unnecessary centralization. A dynamic and successful Europe is not a one-size-fits-all Europe and European integration must not become a goal in itself, but a means to create sustainable prosperity. Nor do we need cosmetic efforts to pursue EU-wide policies to combat the current crisis, when it is obvious that we have failed to act together.
This is particularly important in the area of worker protection. European nationals are unlikely to support measures to strengthen the EU if this means that working conditions can no longer be decided locally.
Yet the European Court has fueled frustrations by undercutting local labor practices in notable recent cases concerning workers employed in Sweden and in Germany. Europe, to be blunt, must devote more energy in the years ahead to addressing its micro challenges rather than to promoting grand ideas. If we stick to that principle, the EU will have a much better chance of regaining global influence.
Leif Pagrotsky is a Swedish lawmaker, vice president of Riksbank and a former minister of industry and trade and minister of education, research and culture.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The FBI on Sunday arrested Wanying “Heather” Chang (張婉瑩) on suspicion of surveiling the family of the son of President William Lai (賴清德) on behalf of China, an example of “transnational repression” to suppress dissent in Taiwan and abroad. Zhang, a 34-year old realtor in California, was arrested on charges of working as an unregistered agent for China. She and an accomplice were accused of taking photos and videos of Lai’s son and his family, and sending information about their whereabouts and license plates to Chinese officials. “The information could be used by China to gain leverage over the Taiwanese president
On Oct. 10, 1911, gunfire in Wuchang (武昌) shattered the stillness of late-Qing China. What began as a regional uprising quickly ignited a chain reaction across the empire, toppling a dynastic order that had endured for more than two millennia and ushering in one of Asia’s first republics — the Republic of China (ROC). From that moment, the 10th day of the 10th month became a date of epochal significance, not merely in Chinese history, but in the broader arc of Asia’s encounter with modernity. Yet today, as Taiwan marks Double Ten National Day, the holiday’s meaning has undergone a transformation
Taiwan might just give up. That’s the argument Simon Shuster made in The Atlantic’s October issue. The US is unreliable, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) leadership is aligned with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and Taiwan does not have the military capability to defend itself in a prolonged war without help. What hope does Taiwan have? Quite a bit more, in fact, than Shuster lets on. Shuster points to genuine problems. The first Donald Trump administration had a mostly positive record on Taiwan policy. It regularized the arms sales process, enhanced the military-to-military relationship, and treated Taiwan more like a normal
A few days ago, we left our breakfast midway to catch a glimpse of the fighter jets in formation. It was a spectacular sight. We knew it was part of practice drills for Double Ten National Day celebrations and reminded us of the Annual Republic day celebration in India. While channel surfing, I came across a news debate about immigration laws, where an academic asked a fellow panelist: “Why should we be interested in your point of view when you don’t even belong here?” That got me thinking. Was our enthusiasm about the upcoming Double Ten celebrations unwarranted? Was this