EU-Debate

Eleven panels, roundtables and keynote speeches brought together 53 participants (though the real number is actually slightly lower, as some speakers appeared more than once on the podium) from politics, academia and civil society. The Dahrendorf Symposium, held last week at the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin, pointed high and aimed at “Changing the Debate on Europe”.

In fact, participants discussed European democracy, European social space and European foreign policy. The dominant topic, however, was the euro-crisis. As Alina Mungiu-Pippidi from Hertie School has pointed out, three alternative ways to handle the crisis became apparent. The first one she labeled “Transformative Power of Europe reloaded”. It is basically a more-of-the-same-strategy, whose proponents suggest that after the crisis, European countries, cultures and economies will re-converge towards a more united Europe. The second option, called by her “Abandon the Bridge Too Far”, presumes that not all European countries can really cope with a common currency. A break-up of the euro would be the consequence. In that case, alternatives have to be found to make possible a smooth transition and the continuing existence of a European project – though it won’t be the same as today’s project. The third way would be a further differentiation of the integration process.

None of these three options found consensus, of course. Experts and policy-makers alike are unsure how the crisis will evolve and what measures are adequate to address it. All options would have consequences for citizens, but which exactly remains somewhat obscure.

Are these options new? Did the Dahrendorf Symposium succeed in “Changing the Debate on Europe”? No. All of them were discussed in newspapers and think tanks for some time now. But the Dahrendorf Symposium was nevertheless an opportunity to meet and discuss the current crisis, as it brought together so many participants, including ministers, ex- and incoming-Prime Ministers, and Parliamentarians from different countries.

What was missing in the debate? As the euro-crisis consumes much of the time, other issues never made it on the table. Discussions of resource-consumption and environment are victims of the euro-crisis, the situation of migrants and minorities was discussed only at the margins and possible negative consequences of the currency-crisis for democracy in Europe are acknowledged while alternatives were unfortunately not suggested.

Public participation has always been a weak point in European integration. To allow for more participation would mean a real major shift in the debate on Europe. But as long as discussions about the right way forward in Europe are seen as essentially negative, as long as publics in European states don’t take notice of arguments in other countries and don’t engage in public discussions with them, as long as the media are seeing developments in Europe often enough as “foreign” news, even if these developments affect very directly welfare and well-being of the citizens, as long as the media entrench themselves behind barriers of national borderlines, such a change of debate still seems to be a kind of utopia. Many more forums, and not only, are still needed to turn this so close utopia to reality.

From down-to-earth social problems, the Dahrendorf Symposium, held last week in Berlin, took a lift to the atmospheric altitude of Europe’s foreign policy. Discussing first “Europe as a social space”, addressing minority problems, it switched to “Global Europe”, addressing, well…, what exactly? European Foreign Policy seems to be a linkage of major failures. Europe did not push through a comprehensive climate change agreement; it did not find common positions either on Iraq in 2003 or on Libya in 2011, and had to accept the ruin of its nuclear non-proliferation strategy with North Korea getting the bomb and Iran being close to it.

Of course there is some kind of a European Foreign policy. In fact, it is even visible in media coverage, Thomas Risse from Freie Universität Berlin pointed out. And Europe has some influence. Strangely enough, this influence is stronger often in those areas, in which its influence is not intentionally implemented. International Courts, for example, model the European Court of Justice, and other regional organizations study the EU very closely to copy elements they like.

Later that day, Wolfgang Ischinger, German ex-ambassador and now Chairman of the Munich Security Conference, cited Donald Rumsfeld, the former US Secretary of Defense: “If you can’t solve the problem – enlarge it, put it in a wider context.” That idea might be useful for the discussion on European Foreign Policy as well. Even if chances remain low to negotiate some effective international agreement, say, on climate change, chances might be higher if Europeans negotiate together then if they were to negotiate alone. The same goes for most other policies.

Yet even when it comes to the common foreign policy, expectations might easily fly high, and, indeed, too high. A common European foreign policy might be more effective then 27 national foreign policies. However, other international actors still have to be persuaded. So it might be fairer not to judge European foreign policy in the simple terms of success or failure and more in respect to what results probably might have come out of a given situation without a common policy (in the making). Additionally, National states as well often implement non-coherent foreign policies (in conflict with their trade- or development policies, for example), change them over time, contest them domestically, and react too slowly to new circumstances (have a look at the Arab Spring). That said, EU-foreign policy might still benefit from a more coherent strategy, less quarrels and quicker decision-making. But it doesn’t look as catastrophic as it seems on first glance.

When boarding his flight from Milan to Berlin Wednesday morning, fellow-passengers asked Mario Monti if he was really taking a flight into the right direction. “I checked, of course”, he added, as he told the audience at the Dahrendorf Symposium at the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin. Laughter was on his side.

Success might follow suit: After Silvio Berlusconi’s announcement to step back, Mario Monti figured prominently in media speculations, on who could follow as Italian prime minister. Signs are pointing in his direction: Yesterday evening, Mr. Monti was appointed a lifetime Senator by the Italian President, Giorgio Napolitano, though officially both issues are not linked.

Born in 1943 in the Lombard town Varese, Mario Monti studied economics in Italy and in the US and became subsequently professor of economics at the universities of Milan, Turin and Trento. Unlike most of his European academic colleagues, Mario Monti also worked as politician. From 1995 to 1999 he was Commissioner for Internal Market at the European Commission and then changed to be Commissioner for Competition until 2004.

In Berlin, Mr. Monti was attending a panel concentrating on the financial and Euro crisis. In opposition to common knowledge, he judged the Euro as a success-story. Concerns remain, though: “The euro was meant to bring together European countries, but it is dividing them. Stereotypes are coming back, putting North against South”, he said.

Italy needs a more active European policy, Mr. Monti added. “We are by no means a peripheral country. Italy can’t evade its responsibility of a founding nation”, he said. A more active role of Italy in European politics could also benefit the European Union. “The function of the Franco-German couple would have been better if Italy wouldn’t have completely expelled itself from this couple in the last past years.”

To save the common currency, a new approach has to be taken, in Italy, but also in Germany, Mr. Monti said. “I would like to see a Germany that will be even stronger, more rigorous, less short-term-oriented, and more patient.” Italy, on the other hand, should consolidate and maintenance its public finances. Needed are both more growth and fewer deficits. “There is no much intellectual divergence on this matter”, Mr. Monti said. He also supported the content of a letter sent to the Italian government by European Central Bank’s former and actual presidents Jean-Claude Trichet, from France, and Mario Draghi, from Italy. While he agreed in content, he criticized the form: “Democratically, the letter by the ECB was not a good idea”, he said. Anyway, it was redundant, according to Mr. Monti. “I think there has never been such an abundance of converging recommendations and guidelines.”

To achieve more growth and lower deficits, he called for a cutback of structural impediments in the Italian economic system. “Growth needs structural reforms”, he said. To achieve structural reforms, Mr. Monti proposed an Italian-style Grand Coalition of major political parties. Probably, he could try to realize this idea quite soon.

This morning, the Dahrendorf Symposium 2011 opened, aiming at „Changing the Debate on Europe“. Today and tomorrow, participants will discuss at the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin issues like “Europe as an ideological space and as a vision”, “The financial and Euro crisis” or “Europe as a social space”. Why could this possibly be relevant?

Quite obviously, the European project is in crisis. The common currency is under pressure, as some countries were unable to finance themselves on the markets and had to rely on bail-outs by European partner countries. In exchange, harsh austerity-measures were to be imposed in, inter alia, Greece, Portugal and Ireland. Many taxpayers and citizens in most countries feel as victims of the respective other. Stereotypes are invoked. German chancellor Merkel talked about “lazy” Southerners, while some protesters in the South depicted her and Europe in general as Nazi-like imperialists.

Unfortunately, the Euro-crisis isn’t the only challenge Europe is facing. Other problems include dynamics in the Schengen-area, in which border controls are abolished, and which was put into question this spring by several European countries out of fears of transnational crime and migration. France and Italy rowed over migrants travelling from Lampedusa to France. Denmark threatened to re-impose border-conflicts (and stepped back recently after a change of government).

Behind all this political topics, we find individual fates. People affected by the Euro-crisis might lose their jobs or have their wages cut. Migrants sometimes face horrible treatments, when they finally reach Europe. Romanians and Bulgarians still can’t travel freely in Europe, as their countries still didn’t join the Schengen-area.

Of course, problems are complex and no easy answers will be found. But thinking about the pressing challenges, approaching them differently and challenging the common knowledge might make a difference. This might already start by leaving behind the crisis rhetoric so often found in political speeches and media analysis and by concentrating instead on solutions rather than problems. “Changing the Debate on Europe” might therefore be already a good start. Conferences like the Dahrendorf Symposium bring together academics, politicians and activists from civil society. They might indicate where the road is leading to. But citizens should have a say as well. To avoid closed doors, let’s have a look at the Dahrendorf Symposium.