When Jean-Claude Juncker became European Commission president five years ago, he confronted formidable challenges, but the test faced by his successor, Ursula von der Leyen, is even more complex.
As Von der Leyen underscored in her “agenda for Europe,” one of her top priorities must be to carry out “a new push for European democracy.”
She can strengthen the EU’s democratic legitimacy in two ways: on the output side, by making sure that the EU delivers on citizens’ expectations at a time of rapid change and escalating external challenges, and on the input side, by fostering constructive cooperation with the European Parliament.
Yet, today, the European Parliament is highly fragmented and polarized, making a stable, pro-European coalition difficult to build. To pass legislation, Von der Leyen would need the support of the Conservatives and Social Democrats, as well as robust and productive working relationships with the Greens and the Liberals. She would probably have to form flexible coalitions in specific areas, which would be time-consuming and increases the risk of political failure on contentious issues.
After the recent elections, for the first time in the European Parliament’s history, pro-European factions — the conservative European People’s Party, the Social Democrats, the Greens and the Liberals — met to create a cross-party political program. Yet the process stalled, as the parliament could not agree on its own candidate for the office of commission president, and a four-party “coalition agreement” is no longer on the table.
Von der Leyen should nonetheless engage the parliament politically as much as she can, beginning with the priorities included in the mission letters that she must send to commissioners. These priorities should be shaped by discussions with the newly elected chairs of the parliamentary groups.
Fostering constructive cooperation with the parliament would require credible implementation of a de facto right of initiative for the parliament, regular dialogue with the president and the enduring commitment of every single commissioner.
Von der Leyen must be able to rely on her team to help her navigate the complex political environment not only in the parliament, but also in the European Council, and to guide her efforts to engage the European public in a debate on the EU’s future.
That is why Von der Leyen must ensure that when tailoring the commissioners’ portfolios, inter-institutional relations are given sufficient weight.
In the previous commission, Vice President Frans Timmermans handled such relations as part of his vast portfolio. In the new commission, inter-institutional relations — together with democratization — should form a commissioner’s full portfolio.
That commissioner’s task would be hugely important, and thus should be undertaken by an experienced policymaker — ideally someone who has worked at the national and European levels, in the European Parliament and with the council.
Given Von der Leyen’s party affiliation, a Social Democrat would be a good choice, although whoever is chosen would need to be able to work across party lines.
Working directly with Von der Leyen and the commission’s vice presidents, this commissioner should manage overall relations with the European Parliament and the General Affairs Council, while also helping to coordinate each individual commissioner’s interactions with the parliament. This portfolio would include preparation of the commission’s annual and pluri-annual programs and, in particular, its joint declaration with the parliament on annual legislative priorities.
Moreover, given the portfolio’s lack of policy specialization, this commissioner could support Von der Leyen in handling particularly urgent, controversial or otherwise delicate issues — such as migration or eurozone reform — that require extra political effort to enable progress.
Such a commissioner could also ensure that actions in internal and external policy areas — from the common foreign and security policy to engagement with Europe’s broader neighborhood — are coherent.
Finally, this commissioner would play an important role in helping to implement one of the priorities Von der Leyen has outlined in her agenda: the Conference on the Future of Europe, which is supposed to deliver results as early as next summer.
This ambitious endeavor — in which the public, civil society and European institutions are to participate on an equal footing — would require careful preparation and stewardship, not least because Von der Leyen wants the European Parliament, council and commission jointly to define its goals and scope in advance.
In this and other areas, the stakes are higher for the commission and the parliament than they were during the previous term. Delivering the tangible results that citizens are demanding would require leaders to master rapidly changing policymaking conditions, characterized by rising internal EU skepticism and intensifying external pressure, including interference from outside actors such as China.
Transformative technological change and monumental threats such as climate change compound the challenge.
In this context, the European Commission and the parliament should be more motivated than ever to cooperate. This should include annual reviews of priorities by the commission, in collaboration with the parliament, to assess progress and identify necessary action.
Such a process has become all the more important at a time when EU member governments are losing patience with supranational decision-making.
Unless EU institutions prove themselves, member governments might be tempted to circumvent them and cooperate within smaller groups, for the sake of efficiency.
Ensuring effective cooperation with a fragmented European Parliament will not be easy, but it is possible, especially for a commission that places the highest priority on doing so, while enhancing its own legitimacy by leading a broad public debate on Europe’s future. That is the commission Von der Leyen must build.
Daniela Schwarzer is director of the German Council on Foreign Relations.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS