It is barely sunrise in the 21st century and from the look of recent occurrences, the EU has definitely woken up on the wrong side of the bed: an identity crisis; a communication or image problem; snail's pace economic growth rates; the unemployment palaver; lack of political will, unity, and proper organization, to name a few, constitute a combined threat to consign the utility of Europe’s soft power to the dustbin of history. The EU seems to be drawing inspiration from a brand new motto: "have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it." And because it has become common to assume that today’s challenges far outweigh yesterday’s successes, Europe embraces the logic of doing its best and leaving the rest. But if Joseph Woods' idea of logic being the art of going wrong with confidence had not triggered some redefinition of the many questions that seek answers, then the doses of realism meted out by rising euro sceptics – great at getting answers but without the slightest idea what the questions are – would have sounded the death knell on every available sense of perseverance. I also read through those details that blur the distinctions between outright pessimism and undisputable fact, where it was argued that "rhetoric should not replace reality as to Europe's capabilities to emerge as a major power, even in the medium to long term," and all I could do was wonder.
After almost 50 years of peace, prosperity and progress, Europe’s has been a lifetime largely emblematic of political achievement. Much recently, however, the inability to adequately utilize its strong arm of economic heft has obviously produced adverse effects on Europe’s general state of being. From a distance, I watched pathetically as this situation deteriorated into the subordination of Europe to the strong waves of globalization. The Europe I used to know would rather have it the other way round. Not too much has changed though. Other than an old-time friend across the Atlantic whose phenomenal resilience has secured him a fragile overall dominance, and a few hitherto up-and-coming powers from Asia (have no doubt, they have come) who have suddenly kept the world at alert, the prospects of converting Europe’s crisis into opportunity could have been everything but bleak – that is, of course, if the EU even had the ‘courage’ to take it. The good news is that despite the quandary arising from the French and Dutch-sponsored ‘No!’; a pre-modern budget that finds wisdom in bankrolling some unity in diversity; a hardly justifiable CAP that places Europe as the barrier to worldwide poverty eradication; a defence policy where ‘a philosophical virtue’ is being made ‘of a very practical necessity’ ; the disconnection between Brussels and the citizens that has shut out the voice of the pragmatic European; and globalization that might as well keep forging ahead evidently invulnerable to our inabilities to keep pace, the EU can now grab this golden opportunity to prove that it is not *hiding behind events to keep out of sight of their meanings.
Whatever the diagnosis may have been, the desperation with which remedies have been sought to cure Europe has seen so many ambitious declarations popping up under the auspices of schemes such as the Lisbon Agenda. If considered along with Europe’s large representation even in elite clubs like the G8, OECD, it is hard to fathom how “the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world” can materialize in four years from now by employing the dual forces of ‘over-representation’ and ‘under-achievement’. Even the most passive observer will testify to the fact that “the high-minded words” contained in the Agenda, as Andrew Scott points out, “have not been accompanied by the structural reforms needed for stable growth in the long-term.” It is sad enough to find that the perception of a mostly elite-driven EU has resulted in a crisis of legitimacy, but when consolation is sought by failing to deliver on commitments made to a people that feel increasingly marginalized, then such incompetence, ordinarily incompatible with the front line role the EU seeks to play on the international scene, arouses suspicions of an Europe destitute of visionary leadership. A dogged desire to simply make pronouncement on propositions ‘for the record’, having little or no consideration for practical implications and the complexities of political responsibility, has seen an European transition from radical attack (which gave impetus to the ‘Europeanization of the world’ soon after the Industrial Revolution) to mediocre defence (imagine responses to the effects of China’s textile exports last year). This in turn does little to relate tangible and concrete means to specific ends in recognized problem areas. Hence, the question at this point ought to be, not which the superior model to follow is, but which elements of every single model can effectively be applied to each different case.
Deep within me lays a conviction that from the EU’s sick bed it is capable of seeing what its contemporaries stand no chance of finding from the mountain top. The onus thus falls on us not only to reconcile Europe's need for inspiration with the world's need for Europe, but also, the imperatives of economics with political intricacies. While in the case of the latter, synergies have become critically necessary because the spheres of politics and economics are mutually reinforcing, not mutually incompatible, caution is required in the former because the more sluggish Europe gets in meeting expectations, the more enhanced the world’s adaptation to a global system without European dynamism becomes…this is not necessarily a good thing. Working to reverse this ill trend will, no doubt, provide answers to questions insinuating that the EU is *hiding behind effects to keep out of sight of their causes.
This, then, is the what. Now, then, for the how. Rise up therefore, dear Europe, quit writing about neighbourhood gettogethers, PTAs, and the like, and substitute your influence in international affairs that depends on what goes on inside the EU with home grown strategies and policies towards the rest of the world. The European economy is the only pillar that keeps the European project standing – lose it and not even the EU would wish to apply for membership in itself. It makes sense then to take full advantage of all comparative advantages and strengths. This calls for a concerted effort from businesses and policy makers alike. Since it is clear that structural reforms initiated by decision makers are necessary to ‘unleash’ the potential of Europe’s economy over the long-term, a good communications strategy will, at a stroke, deal with restoring citizens’ confidence that has been eroded by repeated setbacks. Confidence in such reforms can be restored by keeping interim targets in view while ensuring that their costs and benefits are made known to all parties concerned before hand. Europe must be ready to shoulder the responsibilities that come with world power ambitions. European companies, on the other hand, need only to look farther than usual to find that taking responsibility in the 21st century has become the shortcut to the top. In America, for instance, GE has resolved not to be judged by profits alone, but by its ability to meet the responsibility of saving the planet, and profitably for that matter. By this singular act, “GE is sticking its neck out and, among the most influential big American businesses, it has taken something of a lead.” Look also toward the forces driving the economies of the new Asian giants and it becomes obvious that Europe has absolutely nothing to lose by getting solutions to market long before any competition realizes there is a market: rather than wait till the prices are low enough to secure a market, Japanese forecasters are inexorably attacking solar energy technology now, all in an attempt to pull down costs much faster.
Europe, long before now, raised and equipped the most capable managers with high-level European experience that can put the continent back on track, although keeping them within has been problematic as they benefit more from running the shows for a considerable bulk of American companies. “But Europe badly needs to keep its own talent and exploit it to the full […] people to whom the boundaries between nations mean no more than those between departments.” The direct implication of these is that Europe could well be on its way to laying the foundations for a faster growing economy that absorbs more of the world’s goods, thus making it easier, for instance, for the US to slow consumption and close its budget deficits without risking global meltdown.
As structural problems of domestic governance in individual member-states of the EU interact powerfully with the highest level of European politics, it is expected that fresh strategies will emanate that will consolidate the policy formulation and implementation capacity of the EU. This will stimulate cooperation from others and enhance the performance of international institutions. Spill-over effects could create a linkage to the issue of external relations where Europe’s emphasis on structural policies, particularly the normative and institutional infrastructure of a civilized international order, will determine the strength of global governance. Ultimately, not only will principles cease to be assumed irrelevant in the context of efficiency, Europe should also cease to be found *hiding behind facts to keep out of sight of principles.
In spite of The Economist’s prediction of a further declining European economy in The World in 2006, stretching to 2026, this surely is no time to pay attention to demoralizing ‘facts’. Neither should Europe entertain unnecessary comparisons especially in its transatlantic relations. These distractions can only lead to a loss of confidence in the future. The challenges that Europe faces today should be considered too trivial – albeit not literally – to overshadow the consistently positive global economic outlook of the last couple of years. What the EU needs is an uncompromising political will that will go anywhere as long as it is forward; attempting a meticulous reorganization of the seemingly opaque decision-making structures; aggressively attacking those issues that bother European citizens the most; focusing efforts on all comparative advantages and strengths; appreciating the beauty and effectiveness of multiculturalism, in the European context, as against mostly feeble unilateral measures; addressing the clash of values and expectations that arise from massive immigration – Europe must strive to be more tolerant of minorities; and taking the lead in meeting the needs of impoverished areas like Africa where the living standards of an European cow outweigh those of an average African child. Then will the world be convinced that Europe had been laying strong foundations all along with the stones that have been shot at it. For all that it is worth, Robert Frost must have been staring at the flag of the EU when he said “we dance around in a ring and suppose; but the secret sits in the middle and knows.” The EU cannot afford to celebrate blindness at the expense of a forward oriented global system, neither can I tell that to ‘my kids and their friends’.
Throughout this work, the EU and Europe have been used interchangeably given the difficulty of analyzing European activities outside of the EU.
« return.