I was born in 1945. My grandfather was a German Jew. Fortunately, none of my immediate family perished in the Holocaust. But its shadow hung over me throughout my formative years. When I began, in my teens, to meet with German contemporaries, there was an initial reticence and discomfort. But we talked and talked and talked. There was no attempt to hide the past, but there was a burning desire to make a different future. It followed that I became an ardent Europhile.
Two decades ago, the Berlin Wall was torn asunder by jubilant crowds. Today, 10 former communist nations are fully integrated members of the EU. Were my father to reappear suddenly and I told him that Lithuania was a member state, he would stare in disbelief and wonder what I was smoking.
The sad news, however, is that as the structure of the Union (for example, the single market and the single currency) has been put in place, the spirit of unity has died. The European “project” has become an exercise of unalloyed cynicism. The most depressing illustration of this has been the handling of the “European Constitution” and the Lisbon Treaty, and the totally unedifying means by which the European president, a key part of the Lisbon Treaty, is being selected.
The good news is that former British prime minister Tony Blair’s candidacy seems to have been ditched. The reasons for his inappropriateness for the post are too numerous to mention — the single word “Iraq” should suffice. It would have been an act of supreme cynicism and hypocrisy, even by European standards, had he been selected.
The bad news is that the other candidates allegedly being considered — all current or mainly former heads of government — are as inspiring as cold porridge.
The implications of what we are currently witnessing could be enormous. As impressive as Europe’s history has been since the Treaty of Rome established the European Economic Community in 1957, by no means should it be assumed that the EU has become permanent.
Indeed, on the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, no less a Euro-luminary than Jacques Delors expressed the fear that the EU could “unravel.” Former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer expressed similar sentiments in an interview on the BBC early this year.
While such an outcome may be improbable, it would be complacent folly to dismiss the possibility. No institution, society, or civilization can survive purely on autopilot. History, after all, is replete with “rise and fall” stories.
So who the EU president will be matters a lot. What is needed is someone of impeccable integrity and the capacity to inspire — and especially to engage Europe’s young people.
I see only two possible candidates that could meet these qualities: former Irish president Mary Robinson and French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde. I have not excluded men a priori in this exercise, but none occurred to me, and in any case the EU establishment has too many middle-aged white men as it is.
Although the differences between Robinson and Lagarde are many, both would be excellent choices. Robinson may be the more inspirational candidate in light of the projects with which she has been involved since leaving office: chair of the UN Human Rights Commission, honorary president of Oxfam International, chair of the International Institute for Environment and Development, chair of the Council of Women World Leaders and founder of the Ethical Globalization Initiative.
Lagarde has other strengths. She is an accomplished professional, having been chair of one of the world’s largest law firms and ranked by Forbes last year as the 14th most powerful woman in the world. Thus, she has had two brilliant careers — in business and in politics — and has enormous charisma.
Both women therefore represent very different choices as leaders and potential role models. Moreover, Robinson, born in 1944, is a 20th century person. The presidency of the EU would mark the twilight of her career. Lagarde, at 53, is considerably younger.
Reviving the European dream, however, requires not just the choice of an individual. There has to be a cause. And this is where a key question hangs over Lagarde: how does she feel about Turkey’s membership in the Union? Her boss, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, is vehemently opposed, but Sarkozy (who cannot speak English and is computer illiterate) can hardly be described as a 21st century role model. Lagarde, by contrast, seems to be a global Renaissance woman, but her views on Turkey’s EU membership could disprove that image.
Perhaps the greatest challenge for Europe in the 21st century is to bring down the walls between its non-Muslim and Muslim communities. This applies not only to Muslim citizens in the EU, but also to those in the Balkans — notably Bosnia, Kosovo, and Albania — in the former Soviet Union, and especially in Turkey.
This cannot be accomplished overnight. But the process that was initiated has since stalled. Incorporating Turkey — and eventually other majority Muslim European countries — into the EU is the European dream of the 21st century. Getting the right president next year would be an important step in this journey. Robinson or Lagarde could be the inspiring leaders that the EU needs to make this dream a reality.
Jean-Pierre Lehmann is founding director of the Evian Group and professor of international political economy at the International Institute for Management Development.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
RSS