It was not all that long ago — just a few years, as hard as that is to believe — that Europe appeared to be the part of the world most closely resembling the end-of-history idyll depicted by Francis Fukuyama at the end of the Cold War. Democracy, prosperity and peace all seemed firmly entrenched.
Not anymore. Parts of Paris are literally burning. The UK is consumed and divided by Brexit. Italy is led by an unwieldy left-right coalition that is resisting EU budget rules. Germany is contending with a political realignment and in the early phases of a transition to a new leader. Hungary and Poland have embraced the illiberalism seen across much of the world. Spain is confronting Catalan nationalism and Russia is committing new acts of aggression against Ukraine.
In what by historical standards constitutes an instant, the future of democracy, prosperity and peace in Europe has become uncertain. Much of what had been widely assumed to be settled is not. NATO’s rapid demobilization after the Cold War looks premature and precipitous.
There is no single explanation for these developments. What we are seeing in France is populism of the left, the result of people having difficulty making ends meet and rejecting new taxes, whatever the justification for them. This is different from what has fueled the rise of the far right across Europe: cultural defensiveness amid local and global challenges, above all immigration.
The EU, for its part, has gradually lost its hold on the public imagination. It has been too remote, too bureaucratic and too elite-driven for too long.
Meanwhile, renewed Russian aggression might simply reflect Russian President Vladimir Putin’s judgement that, having realized large political returns on his previous military “investments” in Ukraine and Syria, he had little to fear or lose from further actions.
Europe’s political class deserves its share of responsibility for today’s growing disarray. The EU introduced a common currency without a fiscal or banking union, making it all but impossible to conduct a coherent economic policy. The decision to put the UK’s continued EU membership to a popular vote, while allowing a simple majority to decide the issue and failing to spell out the terms of departure, was misguided.
Likewise, opening Germany’s borders to a flood of refugees, however pure German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s motives, was sure to trigger a backlash.
Most recently, French President Emmanuel Macron did himself no favors by backing down to the “yellow vest” protesters, and offering compromises more likely to fuel additional demonstrations and exacerbate his country’s budget predicament.
We should not assume things will get better. It is only a matter of time before France’s far-right National Rally (formerly the National Front) and political parties across Europe figure out how to combine economic and cultural populism and threaten the post-World War II political order. Italy’s hybrid populist government is a version of just that.
The UK would remain torn over its relationship (or lack thereof) with the EU no matter what comes of Brexit; and it is entirely possible that a post-Brexit UK might come under serious strain itself, given renewed calls for Irish unity and Scottish independence.
There is no formula for dividing power between Brussels and capitals that would be acceptable to both the EU and national governments.
Meanwhile, it is far from certain that Putin is content or done with his aggression against Ukraine or conceivably others.
Moreover, in a world of increasing inequality, violence within and between countries, and climate change, the pressures posed by immigration are more likely to worsen than fade away. Economic dislocation is bound to intensify in a world of global competition and new technologies that would eliminate millions of jobs.
Why this matters should be obvious. Europe still represents a quarter of the world’s economy. It is the largest constellation of democratic countries. The past century demonstrated more than once the cost of a breakdown of order on the continent.
Alas, just as there is no single cause that explains Europe’s increasing disarray, there is no single solution either. To be precise, there is no solution of any sort.
However, there is a set of policies that, if adopted, would help leaders manage the challenges.
A comprehensive immigration strategy that balances security, human rights and economic competitiveness is one such policy. A defense effort that focuses more on how money is spent than on how much is needed would go a considerable way to buttressing Europe’s security.
Moreover, deterrence should be strengthened by bolstering NATO and further arming Ukraine.
Weaning Europe from Russian natural gas makes sense as well, which implies halting the Nord Stream II pipeline that is meant to bring gas directly from Russia to Germany, bypassing Ukraine.
Additional retraining programs are needed for workers whose jobs would disappear as a result of globalization and automation.
Much of this agenda would benefit from Washington’s involvement and support. It would help if the US stopped viewing the EU as an enemy and NATO allies as free-riders.
Europe includes the countries most prepared to work with the US to deter Russian aggression; integrate China into global trade and investment frameworks on terms consistent with Western interests; mitigate and, where necessary, adapt to climate change; and set rules of the road for cyberspace.
Alas, such an approach is unlikely to be forthcoming from US President Donald Trump any time soon. That leaves Europe with no choice but to confront its disarray mostly on its own.
Richard Haass is president of the US-based Council on Foreign Relations think tank. He served as former US president George W. Bush’s director of policy planning for the US Department of State, special envoy to Northern Ireland and coordinator for the future of Afghanistan.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past