The border line

Today, the Presidents of the European Council, the Commission and the European Parliament visited the Greek border with Turkey. The Prime Minister of Greece was their host. The message they put across is very clear. The European borders are now closed to mass movements. Immigrants and refugee candidates are not welcome.

The visiting party basically approved the decision taken by the Greek authorities to use all means available to enforce the message. This is a clear shift from the policy line followed by Angela Merkel and others in 2015. It places security and social homogeneity above any other consideration.

The humanitarian dimension is seen as a funding activity. The Europeans pay and others will take care of the refugees. Outside the EU borders. This is the new policy line on mass immigration.

Salvini will become Trump's man in Europe

The Italian people will decide what next, when called to vote for a new government. That’s how our democracies work. It is however quite clear that one of their potential choices, Matteo Salvini, is an anti-European Union, for reasons he knows better than anybody else. He is also an extremist, fully supported by the most reactionary sectors of the Italian society. Many voters might think that he represents the kind of leadership the country needs. But there are also large sectors of the public opinion that see him as the wrong type of choice, someone that can bring disaster to the country. And that disaster could happen quite soon, it is not just a question of long term.

From a European perspective, if Matteo Salvini becomes Prime Minister that is bad news. He will carry division, xenophobia and ultra-nationalism to the European debate. Consensus building will become even more difficult than it is today. He is the enemy from inside. There is no bigger enemy than the one that lives among us.

He is also the strongest ally of the EU’s outside enemies. Some analysts mention his subordination to Vladimir Putin’s money and interests. That is dangerous enough. Putin’s agenda is to destroy the European unity. But I see an additional peril. He will become President Donald Trump’s agent within the EU, in the Council meetings and every time a key decision that might contradict the American policy is on the table. President Trump is no friend of the EU. If I were asked to prioritise the outside leaders that are hostile to the common project, I would start by referring to his name as number one. And I would add that such antagonism is particularly risky, as it comes from the leader of a country that has very close ties with Europe and a strong presence in some of the EU countries, not to mention that it is the most powerful nation on earth. President Trump and his circle will be making good use of Salvini’s duplicity and radicalism.

These are indeed new challenges. They certainly require a different understanding of the old established practises.

Ursula and her challenges

I have now read the questions and objections that certain parties in the European Parliament have raised and addressed to Ursula von der Leyen. Most of them are about petty issues. They are far away from the key concerns that the EU has indeed to face in the next few years. Instead of asking her about the relations with the US, China or Russia, for instance, they question the comments she has made on mundane matters during the last years. Some of those questions have more to do with constraints she has faced as Germany’s Minister of Defence than with real political choices.

Von der Leyen might not have been a strong leader up to now. She might not be charismatic politician. But she is a steady person. And once in a position of greater power, as President of the European Commission – if she gets the EU Parliament’s confirmation – she might be able to stand higher than when she was just a German minister. The function can make the lady. And give her the wings that have been missing up to now.

In any case, I hope she will be voted in. I am ready to bet on the balanced approach she might be able to bring to the job. Moreover, she will be working side by side with Charles Michel, the future EU Council President. And I think this tandem can rise to the challenges that are in the horizon. And they are many and complex.

The new European leadership team

On international affairs, the new European leadership team will have to deal with an interesting deck of cards. I mean the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, the US Donald Trump, the very strategic Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey, the unreliable Boris Johnson in the UK, just to mention some of them. I could add Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu in Israel, if he survives the next round of elections, Nicolás Maduro, and so on. That is a most unique scenario that is waiting for them. The international scene shows all the signs of a perfect storm. And I am not mentioning the tricky situation around Iran, a major epicentre of a potential catastrophe. 

On the domestic front, within the EU space, they will be confronting Matteo Salvini, the strong man in Italy, Viktor Orbán and his neighbours in the Czech Republic and Poland, political instability in Belgium, Spain and Romania, as well as lots of pressure to move faster in areas that divide the European nations, such as the common defence, the climate emergency, the Brexit negotiations, and the pivot to Africa.

This is a most challenging environment. It requires a very strong and united leadership team. Not easy, not easy at all for a team that comes to power almost by chance. Let’s keep watching how strong and determined the new team is.

Travelling and the EU game

I travelled quite a bit during the last four days or so. Travelling is essential to see the reality for ourselves. It’s the other side of reading. They complement each other. But more effectively than reading, travelling feeds the imagination, which is a major tool for transformation.

And talking about transformation, during these days four people were nominated to take over leadership positions at the European Union’s key institutions. There are a few comments that can be made about the choices made. I will share mine soonest.

But I would like to suggest that the decisions have shown the trend that has defined the EU during the last ten years or so. The Heads of State and Government are the real force, for good or for worse, behind the EU machinery. That basically means, among other things, that the decisions are taken mainly to respond to the overriding concern of keeping the balance between the interests of the major States or geopolitical blocks. It is the game of national agendas and petty powers that is played by the key actors, not the ambition to have a common future and build it together. That behaviour is certainly not very promising

I see the EU Council as positive

The European Council could not reach an agreement on nominations to the big positions. The decision is particularly difficult when it comes to agree on Jean-Claude Juncker’s successor.

The European political scene is divided, and no political group is strong enough to get its candidate through. Alliances and balancing acts are required. And those things take time to achieve.

I do not share the view of those who think the European Council meeting was a disaster. For me, it was an opportunity to clarify the different national interests and the personal dimensions of each possible candidate. They are now much clearer and that should allow Donald Tusk to come up with a combination of names that could meet the calls for fairness, geographical balance, experience, political diversity and gender equality.

The Heads of State and Government that made disparaging remarks after this Council meeting must be reminded that leadership requires maturity, capacity to negotiate in good faith and patience. European construction is not a straight line. And it is not about fulfilling the demands coming from the so-called big countries. It is a consensus project. That is the only source of its strength.

EU Council on Brexit and China

The European Council meeting of yesterday and today was not an easy affair. But it went well. The Heads of State and Government have shown a deep commitment to the discussions. They could agree on a response to Theresa May’s request for a delay in the Brexit date – and this was a very delicate matter, that took many hours to be discussed – and on an approach towards China. In both cases, the twin concerns were to keep the EU united and, at the same time, to leave the door open for a balanced relationship.

The member States might have different views about important issues. However, no one wants to rock the boat. And all understand that by reaching a common understanding about their shared interests they can then have a clear - and stronger - position towards the outside world. Collectively, their interests are leveraged. 

Mark Rutte on the EU

"And I’ve said many times before that I believe the EU is stronger when a deal is a deal.  In the EU there can be no haggling over democracy and the rule of law. We must always draw the line when fundamental values come under pressure, as they have in countries like Poland and Hungary.But a deal is also a deal when it comes to the euro and the Stability and Growth Pact. Because here too, bending the rules can erode the entire system, and we cannot have that. To me the whole idea of the EU is a group of independent member states working together to bring each other to a higher level of prosperity, security and stability. Unity is the source of our capacity to act in the outside world."

Churchill Lecture by The Netherlands Prime Minister Mark Rutte, Europa Institut at the University of Zurich

Speech | 13-02-2019

Brexit: time to move on

Brexit is taking too much of EU leaders’ attention and energy. It’s time to sort it out, to have enough clarity about the direction to follow and then move on. There are many other issues that require top attention. Including an assessment of what remains to be achieved as the current leadership ends their mandates and a definition of what should be the goals for the next cycle. Being clear about those goals could allow for a more substantive campaign for the European elections of May this year. It would bring the debate to a higher level. The candidates must be questioned about their responses to the key challenges. Beyond, well beyond, Brexit. 

EU Global Strategy: an initial comment

The EU High Representative has now presented to the Heads of State and Government the new “Global Strategy”.

I have seen the document but still need to digest the contents. My initial reaction is that the strategy is placing too much emphasis on EU´s role on defence. That might be a huge mistake.

First, because in matters of defence the key goal should be to strengthen the European nations ´capabilities within NATO. That´s the existing commitment, made at the last NATO summit meeting, and also that´s the only way for the Europeans to be able to leverage the US and Turkey´s powerful military machineries. They need to create and combine additional capacity with the extraordinary capacity non-EU NATO members have, particularly the US.

Second, the EU States have to take into account the new situation of the UK. It is unquestionable this country has the best European army. But it will outside the EU in the medium term. They will no longer be part of any EU defence arrangement. To take advantage of their power can only occur elsewhere, not within the EU. Elsewhere means to have to look into NATO´s direction again.

The 2016 G7 Summit is over

This year´s G7 Summit, just completed in Japan, made no history. It was hardly noticed by the European public opinion, just to mention those close to home. Jean-Claude Juncker, the EU Commission President made some brief references to the steel dispute with China, on top of mentioning that the European economy is now much better than in 2008 and that it is moving in a healthy direction. Well, that´s good to know. Donald Tusk, the EU Council President, said a couple of things as well, but no one remembers a word of it. And that was basically the European side of the story, because Merkel, Hollande and Renzi were too concerned about their own domestic problems to be able to fly higher than their national contexts.

Moreover, there was a small number of heads of State from non-G7 countries at the tail end of the summit. They were certainly very happy to sit with the big people and be part of the group picture. But their contribution to the discussions remains unclear. Most likely, to them as well.

The EU crisis and Chicken Little

The EU sky is not falling

This is a difficult time to be an optimist in Brussels. It is even more challenging to advocate for a positive look at European affairs. And it becomes almost impossible to talk about collective hopes for a more united Europe in the future. Many will say such optimism belongs to another epoch. Now, the dominant discourse is one that announces a new catastrophe every week. Like Chicken Little, these so-called realists shout, “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”

As a contrarian, I want to maintain faith in the European project. And be inspired by a forward-looking approach. The best way to build a prosperous and safe future for all of us in Europe is through a united endeavour.  I say it whilst realising the EU is at present facing two major crises. They crowd everything else off the agenda, giving strong arguments to pessimists and those who are against continuing the Union. I mean a possible Brexit and the realities of mass migrations.

With the UK spinning further away from common approaches and policies, arguments for integration and joint responses have indeed become more fragile. In effect, such arguments are practically inaudible because many leaders prefer to focus their attention on their own national agendas. The silence of most of them on EU affairs is deafening.

The UK´s position has brought a lot of uncertainty to the table. At this stage, nobody can predict the outcome of their referendum. It is also difficult to forecast the consequences of a Brexit for the future of the EU.

Nevertheless, the EU would survive a Brexit. Why? Because the UK and the other member states have already learned to go their own separate ways in many areas – the Euro, Schengen, labour laws, justice, and internal security, just to mention a few.  Perhaps the biggest worry is what a Brexit would do to the British themselves, to the status of Scotland, as well as to their tiny neighbour to the west, Ireland.

Brexit or not, the EU shouldn´t be too worried.

The larger question is about immigration. Can the EU survive a continued and expanding mass migration crisis? Many believe it cannot. We keep hearing that without a solution to the current migratory flows, the EU will soon collapse. There is a good degree of exaggeration in the air. The soothsayers of disaster easily capture the headlines. Obviously, the mass arrival of refugees and migrants does pose major challenges and it is essential to recognize this. It is a situation well out of control. Furthermore, this crisis shakes the key foundations of the Union, its values and the role of Europe in the international arena.

More importantly, the migration issue touches the core of a vital dimension of European states—the question of national identity. The people of Europe have shown that they are ready to give away a good number of their sovereign prerogatives, accepting that Brussels can deal with them. This has been the case in a wide range of areas related to economic management, budgets, agriculture, trade, environment, justice, development aid, external relations and other important matters.

Yet, they are not at all prepared to abdicate or dilute their national features, language and everything else that creates a people´s identity. Nor should they. Europe is a complex mosaic of languages, cultures, nationalities and even prejudices. Yes, our views of our neighbours are still shaped by prejudices in significant ways. History and many wars have both divided us and created the diverse assortment we are today. Patriotism is still, and will continue to be for a good while longer, far stronger than pan-Europeanism.

All this must be taken into account. Populists are effective in doing just this, trying to gain the political advantage in the process by exploiting feelings of nationalism. It’s all a little more complicated for an optimist.

This reality notwithstanding, let´s be clear about the present crisis. Let´s imagine we had to face the current migratory instabilities and frictions that the migrations have created in a past context of separate nation states. We can readily assume that some of us would already be at war with our neighbours. We would see coalitions of countries taking military action against others, trying to defend their borders and their own perceived national interests. We would be responding to the threats facing us with weapons drawn upon one another. In the past, this challenge would lead to armed conflict and chaos. We know that the long history of Europe has been written through a succession of wars. 

This all changed when the EU was established. Now, disputes are taken to summits. Summits come and go, often without many concrete outcomes. But, sooner or later, they end up by producing acceptable results of one sort or another. We have learned to take the right decisions at the eleventh hour, that´s true. But we have done so around a conference table and through diplomacy. That´s the kind of lesson we should keep in mind as we get closer to two more summits on the migration crisis: one with Turkey, on the 7th of March and one among the EU leaders on the 17th.

Let´s keep talking and pushing for an agreement. From the cacophony of diverse European voices and the play of varied interests, action will follow. The most relevant contribution of the pessimists, Eurosceptics and  nay-sayers has been to create a greater sense of urgency. Now, the optimists among us have to state that there is only one answer to the big question on the table: Do we allow this challenge to destroy the hard-won political and economic achievements of the EU or do we build on these successes to constructively address this crisis and, in the process, strengthen our union?

I am convinced that realism that will prevail. The European sky isn’t falling.

Three questions about the Brexit

Today´s summit meeting of the EU Council is publicised by some of the key leaders as a decisive one. Why? Well, because of the UK´s demands. The threat of Brexit, the exit of the UK from the EU. Mr Cameron is asking for a new deal between his country and the rest of the EU. He needs it as a major contribution to his political survival strategy. If he can convince the British voters he has managed to twist the European arm that will consolidate him as party leader and also as Prime Minister.

There are many questions that could be raised about all this. But I will save my readers´ sanity and will only mention three of them.

First, this is meeting number 25. I explain. In the last five years or so, twenty-four meetings of the top EU leaders have been presented as critical. Today we have one more. There is a problem here: the frequency of “decisive meetings” has been too high. Maybe Europe is just moving from crisis to crisis, like a dangerously sick person.

Second, Brexit is above all a British issue. They are the ones that should decide if they want to keep the membership or not. Europe will continue and its construction, at a slower or faster pace, depending of the policy areas, is on the way. The leaders and the people of the UK should make their minds. Either they are in and participate in the vast majority of the common projects or they are out and sign some kind of free trade agreement with the EU.

Third, it is almost certain Cameron will lose the support of the British voters. The chances of a Brexit are very high. The EU cannot fall on its knees to please the British. Short of that, they will opt for the exit door.

I am one of those who believe it is time to be clear. Clear vis-à-vis our own citizens and clear regarding David Cameron´s political games. 

Cameron´s doomed days

As we come closer to the next summit meeting of the EU Council, on 18 and 19 February, the Brexit issue gets more attention. It will be one of the heavy subjects on the table during the meeting. And I am afraid David Cameron will not get more concessions from the heads of state and government than those already suggested by Donald Tusk. It will be difficult for him to manage that. The popular media in the UK thinks that Tusk´s proposals do not go far enough. That opinion will have a significant impact on the voters. And I am getting convinced that Cameron is going to be one of the great losers of all this process. His political future is very much at stake. He will not be able to survive a contrarian vote.

Poland is adding new challenges to the EU

Poland´s new political situation, with the Law and Justice Party (PiS) as the governing force, was the top headline in today´s Le Monde. The French newspaper, a reference daily for many in Europe, focussed its analysis and comments on the PiS-supported government´s efforts to take control of the Constitutional Court of Poland and on its very conservative, nationalistic and authoritarian political agenda. It also made reference to the new approach being followed in Warsaw towards the EU. That approach is certainly perceived as not very constructive and is clearly clashing with the policies adopted by the EU institutions and most of the member states.

Poland´s new leaders will bring additional challenges in 2016 to the European project. There was no need for that addition. But it has to be taken into account as the country is an important player within the Union.

Two additional questions about the Middle East

After the agreement on Iran´s nuclear programme, there are two additional questions related to the Middle East that should receive the same amount of attention. They are both related to peace and security in the region. As such, they are vital for a geopolitical space that has known decades of conflict and remains the major focus of international instability.

One of those questions is about fighting violence. What can the UN Security Council and the countries of the region do to bring peace to Syria and Iraq as well as to Yemen? In different words, can we launch a regional conference on peace and security in the Middle East? This is a very central question. It has to be raised and we have to call on the international leaders to take up their responsibilities and dare to initiate such a process.

It cannot be just about peace in country A or B. In this very volatile part of the world we need to look at the future from a regional perspective. The country by country approach has a very limited impact.

The second question is about the Palestinian crisis. The Quartet is not producing any tangible results. The Palestinian issue is just not being properly addressed. We need to ask ourselves what can be done to change the trend and be in a position to initiate a true process that can lead to a durable solution. 

Here, I see a much greater role for the EU. The EU should take the lead. And it has a chance to do it, now that Tony Blair has moved out of the picture. It has also the moral responsibility, to compensate for all the years we have lost with Blair pretending to be around.

Moderation is essential at this stage of the EU affairs

The current political narrative within the EU is led by those with extremist views. The Greek crisis has in many ways contributed to a serious intellectual split. Many have taken the defence of the underdog and are expressing radical opinions against Northern Europe, in general terms, and more specifically towards Germany. This trend is certainly not the best to keep the EU together. It also undermines a tolerant approach to the cultural differences within Europe. It is actually the best way to foment prejudice and hatred.

I am certainly worried by this development.

It is time to show that Europe is still a worthwhile project. And that we are not at all at the deathbed of the common project. To start with, there is a need to better explain the reasons for the approach followed at the last Eurogroup summit. Many people have yet to understand its rationale. We cannot be blind to the damage ignorance causes. Particularly when, on the other side, many people are just adopting a very negative approach or being influenced by those who have an exalted, exaggerated, unrealistic opinion about these matters. 

Greece has to move fast and show results

The Greek government has lost the last month trying to convince the European leaders to accept the merits of its approach to crisis management. In the current situation, a month is a long period of time for the Greeks. It is even longer when you achieve very little. It is hell, when you have empty pockets.

They should have listened to the advice coming from the key EU capitals: no programme implementation, no money. Such advice was repeated in Brussels last night, when a side mini-summit brought together the Greek prime minister, Angela Merkel, François Hollande and a couple of other senior people, Greece was once more invited to cooperate with the rest of the UE. Money was promised. It should be released when the Greeks start moving along the reform path.

Listening today to the Greek Prime Minister I got the impression he has not yet realised that time is running out. Money is getting very thin in the government´s drawers. And the political support they had in Europe is evaporating fast. It would be better for his government and his people to show they can implement the agreed reforms. The sooner they do it the better for them and for Europe´s cohesiveness. 

Let´s be clear about the EU elections

The key call for this weekend´s European election is to vote for pro-EU candidates. At a time of uncertainty and big challenges, including widespread demagoguery, the European project would be under a critical threat if the ultra-nationalists and extremists were to get a sizeable percentage of seats at the new European Parliament.  

Egypt: unacceptable court proceedings

Let me be clear. Kangaroo courts and irrational judgments like the ones now taking place in Egypt are simply unacceptable. The way hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers and activists have been sentenced – most of them to death – has to be denounced as totally inappropriate in any country today. It is just absurdly infamous and nothing can justify that type of processes. Each trial is a violation of the most basic human rights

I realise the Egyptian society is now deeply divided. But it cannot be guided by blind hate. It has, on the contrary, to find ways to bring people together. There is no way one segment of society is going to be able to annihilate the opposing segment. They have to compromise and live together.

I am very surprised by the Western leaders´ silence. I cannot understand why the EU and the US are not loud and clear about these medieval approach to governance in Egypt.