Edward Gibbon, reflecting on the decline of the Roman Empire, noted that it “was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness.” Rome’s prosperity ripened the principle of decay. This reminds me of the ongoing discussion of Europe’s decline. Have roughly six decades of peace and well-being made Europeans lazy, flabby, and, in effect, vulnerable? Are we unable to fight and face today’s challenges?
Europe’s decline is at the forefront of an entire policy debate in the European Union. But while Europe immerses itself in sterile disputes about its malaise, millions look to the EU with hope. Countries from the Balkans and Eastern Europe are still knocking on the Union’s door. The inhabitants of Belarus and of the southern parts of the Mediterranean ask for our support in democracy building. For those on the outside, the European dream is a desirable reality. What will Europe’s response be?
If the EU would only raise its eyes from its byzantine quarrels over institutional problems, it would see that a new world is being born—one that is more Europeanized, but less Eurocentric. Europeans are no longer the only actors on the stage. Europe’s mark can be found on a variety of international organizations, laws, and institutions but this does not translate directly into European influence on a post-Western world. An introspective and defensive Europe today means a marginalized and ultimately irrelevant Europe tomorrow. If the EU aspires to maintain its international status, it must follow the advice the wise Red Queen gave to Alice: “It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.”
But what if the EU wants more? If the Union aspires to lead change and participate in the creation of a new international order, its actions can’t be limited to effective crisis management or generous development aid. It is high time for the EU to become a strategic player—not just a payer.
Let’s begin with Europe’s neighborhood. Democratic movements have emerged there. The recent uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt have debunked many myths—among them the one of “authoritarian modernization.” In fact, lack of freedom shackled development in these countries. As bizarre as it may seem to some, the prodemocracy elites in those countries are looking to the EU as a source of inspiration. Democracy is not the exclusive property of the West. Neither is prosperity. But the West’s uniqueness lies in successfully bringing these two together. The EU should embrace its neighbors in an intimate and interdependent relationship—as a means of achieving shared prosperity. There are different forms of assistance, of which direct financial aid is only one—another is sharing expertise and education in ways that respect the autonomy and sovereignty of the country in question.
We should focus on opportunities rather than on threats. It is obvious that Europe will benefit from helping its neighbors. A real exchange of human capital in the entire region surrounding the EU could be a great source of renewed potential and political energy for the Union. To begin with, Europe must take some practical steps in favor of its neighbors, such as facilitating access to the single market—particularly for agricultural and fisheries products—or putting in practice mobility partnerships—facilitating travel to Europe, in particular for students, researchers, and businesspeople. If the expectations of citizens in Europe’s neighborhood are not met, their lives may be poorer and shorter, but Europeans will also lose out. Without meaningful social, political, and economic change in these countries, Europe will face a rise in sectarianism, radicalism, and instability in its neighborhood.
To help the EU’s neighbors in Eastern Europe and North Africa, Poland has proposed a new European Endowment for Democracy (EED). The EED could address two objectives that existing EU instruments fail to meet. First, thanks to the EED, the Union could become a stakeholder in the long term. And second, it could offer tailor-made projects for all leading forces of change, including—aside from governments—civil society organizations and local communities.
One of the ways in which Europe could improve its policies toward the Southern Mediterranean and the Arab world in general is by working on joint projects with Turkey. Ankara is seen by many Arab countries as an attractive model. It could therefore play a crucial role in the peaceful democratic transformation of common neighbors, something that is in everyone’s interests.
While focusing on the South, it is important not to forget about the East. The Arab revolutions are another reason we need to strengthen fragile Eastern European democracies. The most serious threat to democracy is the notion that it has already been achieved.
Part of the solution to the challenges facing Europe lies in maintaining a steadfast openness to new members. Why? Because the EU needs an injection of some fresh blood and dynamism. The opinion that the 2004 and 2007 enlargements have weakened the EU contradicts reality. Let’s talk facts. Economically, the accession of 12 countries into the EU unleashed the growth potential and improved the resilience of the European economy by boosting its competitiveness. The direct beneficiaries are European entrepreneurs and consumers. In the old member states, export-oriented firms increased their potential and labor migration eased bottlenecks. New member states experienced rapid growth in productivity, falling unemployment, and income convergence. Thus the benefits have been mutual. The economic transformation of the new member states in the area of energy liberalization, direct tax competition, or labor market reforms also put pressure on the EU-15 countries to reform. Today, when Europe is living through a time of numerous “fatigues,” it needs more than ever the kind of modernization incentive that the Western Balkan states and Ukraine could give.
Openness must also shape Europe’s policy toward the emerging powers that are fundamentally reshaping the world. But openness should be accompanied by reciprocity. The EU has opened more than 90 percent of its public tenders for non-EU countries while other economies have done the same by only 20 percent, or in some cases not at all. Reciprocity in EU relations with China, India, or Brazil means symmetry in access to public procurements, protection, and respect of intellectual property rights and state aid procedures.
But a sine qua non condition for any influence the EU may continue to exert on the world is that it talks with one voice. “Europe consists only of small countries—some of which know it and some of which don’t yet know.” These are the words of Paul Henri Spaak, one of the EU’s founding fathers. So it’s time to play collectively. The EU is still punching below its weight because of the irresistible temptation many member states have to act alone. Only by acting together can Europe become an actor—not solely an observer—in world affairs. That means a single EU voice at the United Nations and a single voice in multilateral fora like the G20. The EU must carry one message whenever possible.
The devil is in the details. In all the cases of European policy the question is not the dilemma between being in favor or against, but rather the awareness of how to tackle the issue. These topics need to be understood and managed together with the EU’s political and economic goals, despite the current crisis—or perhaps because of it.
Gibbon attributed the causes of decay in Rome to its long peace and prosperity. Both “introduced a slow and secret poison into the vitals of the empire. The minds of men were gradually reduced to the same level, the fire of genius was extinguished, and even the military spirit evaporated.” It may sound familiar these days but as a humble practitioner of diplomacy, I would suggest to focus on another cause for Europe’s decline. Europeans are failing because they have created institutions that have made leadership impossible. EU leaders are appointed, not elected. Let’s create the possibility of leadership that is democratic and legitimate and elected in transparent procedures. The multiplication of chiefs of EU institutions does not enhance European influence but dilutes it. The EU should start by combining the functions of president of the European Council with that of president of the European Commission. Europe’s power is in relative decline only. Lessons should be learned. The fate of contemporary Europe can be different from that of the Roman Empire.
Radosław Sikorski is the minister of foreign affairs of the Republic of Poland.
.jpg)
