Following the escalation of the euro crisis and decisions taken at the EU’s last summit, especially EU leaders’ commitment to embark on the road “toward a genuine economic and monetary union,” it is high time to ask what comes next. Whatever the final outcome, the current crisis will fundamentally shape the future of European integration.
In a worst-case scenario, Europe’s sovereign-debt crisis could cause the eurozone to implode, with immediate negative effects for the EU itself. Fortunately, this scenario still seems rather unlikely — as EU countries inside and outside the eurozone seem keen to avoid the enormous economic, financial, political and social fallout that such a scenario implies. However, the danger of a fundamental disintegration has increased over time, and today such an outcome cannot be excluded.
At the same time, it seems unlikely that member states will be ready and able to make one giant leap towards a “United States of Europe” — that is, a genuine federal entity in which EU countries agree to surrender national sovereignty on an unprecedented scale.
The record since 2010 suggests that “muddling through” will remain the EU’s dominant approach for the foreseeable future. Yet, contrary to the past, the increasing existential pressures on the common currency and the constant scrutiny by markets and citizens will require bold policy responses that go well beyond the lowest common denominator.
At the end of the day, “ambitious muddling through” will most likely lead to a higher degree of sui generis economic and fiscal integration (especially among eurozone countries), including binding synchronization of national budgets, greater economic coordination and, eventually, also some limited form of debt mutualization. In other words, resolving the crisis will require “more Europe,” though the final outcome is impossible to predict, as it will result from a complex process aimed at reconciling divergent and opposing positions both within the EU and among eurozone countries.
The EU’s leaders have asked European Council President Herman Van Rompuy to develop, in close collaboration with the presidents of the European Commission, the Eurogroup, and the European Central Bank (ECB) has been tasked with devising a road map to achieve a “genuine economic and monetary union.” The final report, due to be delivered in December, should identify which additional steps can be taken on the basis of the existing EU treaties and which measures require treaty amendments.
Given the urgency of the crisis, some of the more immediate steps towards a higher level of economic and fiscal integration, which are not enforceable under the current EU treaties, might require additional intergovernmental arrangements outside of the EU’s treaty framework. Such an approach should not be a goal in itself, but it might be a necessary evil to avert the danger of a euro implosion.
However, in order to regain institutional coherence, legal certainty and democratic accountability, core elements of the “fiscal compact” and any other future agreements between EU governments should be incorporated into the union’s primary body of law as soon as possible. Moving towards a genuine economic and monetary union will also require more fundamental institutional reforms. This process cannot be limited to governments, but will also have to involve the European Parliament and national parliaments in the framework of yet another European Convention.
A higher level of economic, fiscal and political integration will also compel the amendment of national constitutions. Ratification of a new EU treaty and the adaptation of national constitutions would inevitably require referenda in a number of countries. Given Dutch and French voters’ rejection of the EU’s constitutional treaty in 2005, and European citizens’ increasing frustration with the EU leadership and its crisis management, the outcome would be highly uncertain. Yet it is a risk that must be taken. Indeed, the danger of a euro implosion or a potential exit from the common currency may prove to be sufficiently strong arguments to “persuade” a majority of Europeans to vote yes.
The “ambitious muddling through” scenario will be long, bumpy and sometimes risky, and will probably end at a destination that looks very different from today’s expectations. However, before the EU embarks on that inevitable and uncertain journey, its institutions and member states (actively supported by the ECB) must fashion a safety net that can protect the euro and the EU itself from hitting the ground face first when the going gets rough in the coming years.
After all, the debt crisis is likely to continue to generate immediate economic, fiscal, and market pressures. Yet the EU and its members will also increasingly have to cope with the collateral damage caused by the crisis.
That damage includes increasing nationalism and anti-euro/EU populism, mounting social challenges in many member countries, a growing “democratic deficit” in the EU, a poisoned atmosphere among EU countries and the lack of proactive, stable leadership coalitions pushing in the same direction. All of this could lead to a standstill, which, in the current environment, would be tantamount to going backward, threatening not only European integration’s future prospects, but also its past accomplishments.
Under these circumstances, “ambitious muddling through” is both the most likely and the most promising scenario. It will not be easy and it will not allow time for complacency, given that the EU is most likely to remain in crisis mode for some time to come. However, it is probably the only way to keep Europe moving forward.
Janis Emmanouilidis is a senior policy analyst at the European Policy Center.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath