2017. Europe cornered between the rebirth of a bipolar world and its crisis of values?
(B2) Europe should live, in 2017, a year of choice. Alone with herself. Last year we wrote 2016, a world between two phases. And Europe: folded in on itself? It must be recognized that at the borders, the threats have not really diminished. But somehow the picture of external threats is no worse than it was a year ago.
One could even say that it is rather “contained”. Other threats, much more existential in a way, emerged in 2016 and could grow in 2017. United — to regain their leading position at their expense, without the other players on the world stage (China, India, etc.) having given up trying to find their place in the sun. The scissor effect threatens between those above who want to break any European momentum and those who push. On the other hand, the main threat that appears today is in terms of values and inner solidity. The political crisis — predicted by some experts — which followed the financial crisis is accompanied by a philosophical crisis.
A significant level of external threat
At the borders of Europe, the syrian conflict continues to produce fighting, casualties and mass displacement of the civilian population. Russian intervention - military and political - has reshuffled the cards and could, paradoxically, facilitate the outcome of the conflict. There Libya continues to be a "black hole", with a government that only controls a few streets of Tripoli. 2017 could be the year of the installation of this government, provided that Tripoli and Benghazi, al-Sarraj and Haftar find a way to get along. The conflict in eastern Ukraine, which might have seemed frozen, is experiencing regular flashbacks, as if it was necessary to maintain a source of necessary instability.
A little further on, the civil conflict in Iraq is far from settled. But the power of Baghdad and its various “allies” (Kurds and Iranians on one side, Americans and the Western coalition on the other) seem to be regaining the upper hand. If 2017 could see the phase of reconquest of territories held by the organization of the Islamic State, peace remains far from being won however. And the terrorist organization can always find something to recharge.
The peace process in Middle-East looks dead. This time, it is the United States that wants to reshuffle the cards, encouraging colonization and challenging the status quo. This could lead to a resurgence of tensions that remained, for the moment, confined locally. But it could also end up unfreezing a situation that is untenable anyway. A lifting of lids which is not without danger. As for theAfghanistan. , it continues to be an unstable land, but it is far... (except the indirect consequences with an influx of refugees).
In this ocean of rather dark news, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria are resisting, despite everything, despite the significant tensions at their borders, despite the internal tensions. A small miracle, in itself, which must be welcomed. And if the countries of the Sahel - Niger, Mali - remain fragile, the main threats they faced (thanks in particular to the French commitment with Barkhane).
Two (great) enemies of Europe today...
In addition to these external threats, which are – after all – no worse than last year, there are now two more important ones. The two "powers" closest to Europe, one geographically, the other politically, wish, if not the destruction of European construction, at least its neutralization, its strategic obliteration. This is in itself a new phenomenon, a calling into question of the precepts that were current a few years ago (Medvedev doctrine, on the one hand, Bush-Obama doctrine on the other).
A less partner, even hostile Russia
Relations with Russia were not excellent in the past two years (since the intervention in Crimea and Ukraine). There they seem to cross an ideological milestone. Moscow has so far considered the European Union as a lesser evil, even a godsend, which it opposed to NATO and the United States. For Putin's Russia, the European Union, its democratic tropism, its rather anarchic functioning in itself, more confederal than unitary, very 'soft'and not at all'hard has, in fact, become "the" threat. NATO officially remains the adversary. But the Alliance is the "good old enemy", the one we need to cheer up the masses, harmless enough in the end. The European tropism is much more threatening, because it is more insidious, more effective in the end on the traditional Russian functioning. To the south, Russia is therefore weaving its web in an unequaled way, in order to circumvent what it feels to be an encirclement. Even if the thread is fragile, which country can boast today of maintaining good relations with Lebanon and Israel, Iran and Turkey, Syria and Egypt, without forgetting Libya? Even in Europe, from Finland to Portugal via Bulgaria, Hungary or Greece, Moscow has support. A certain turnaround.
A less united or even negative America
On the other side of the Atlantic, the community of values shared by Americans and Europeans seems to be breaking with the establishment of the Trump administration. Rarely has an American power had the political display of destroying the European Union. Competition was still being felt on certain issues (WTO, GMOs, defence, etc.). But it was not generalized to the very essence of European construction. The United States has always wanted to have Europe on its side, not in front, but in second place. What Trump seems to hate seems similar to what Putin hates. This Union, which affirms the potential of being able to compete with the Primus inter Pares American must be destroyed, according to him. Certainly his administration is in the process of being set up. And the first declarations will perhaps be polished. But it is doubtful that this hostile background reappears regularly.
A hardening Turkey
To this, we must add a Turkish power, victim of a coup d'etat which moves away from the European continent and moves more towards democratization (mixing inquisitorial power, violations of human rights, with a democratic ). Turkey, which has always been a stable ally of the Atlantic Alliance, even if it was often tough in negotiation, has today become an “unreliable” ally. This becomes a risk for the European neighbor and could lead to reconsidering certain elements of European security.
The Europe that was built alongside Russia and with the United States must now consolidate itself against Russia and without, or even against, the United States, by having to manage a large unstable state almost within it (1 ). That makes a lot ! But it's manageable if Europe were united and functioning... It doesn't seem to be the case.
And an absence of European conviction
The conviction in the need for Europe has shaken among the peoples for multiple reasons: political, economic, philosophical, sociological. It has been undermined both by internal backlashes, erratic policies, a lack of support in the political class but also the notable errors of the European leadership which has always considered that the other was at fault. To this undermining movement, we must add the birth of frankly nationalist, even neo-Nazi movements, much more serious than a few so-called populist troublemakers (2).
Three Notable Internal Crises
The migrant and refugee crisis — driven in part by the Syrian conflict and the Libyan black hole — is unresolved, as is the threat of terrorist attacks which is still at the highest level. It is not the direct effect of these two crises that appears most worrying today. But their repercussions in European society. The financial and economic crisis has still not been resolved (despite deliberately optimistic speeches). It has led to the notable downgrading of the middle class (which has often been at the heart of the European project) and general disenchantment. Europe's unpreparedness for this crisis of existence, like its refusal to recognize certain policy errors, has led to a magnifying glass effect focusing resentment, which has become resentment, on European construction.
Anti-European conformity
At all times, a eurosceptic or sovereigntist current has prevailed. It's really not a difficulty. But today, not only has it gone beyond the minority stage, but it has also won over all layers of society (from intellectuals to workers, from rich to poor) and all political sides. At the extremes, but also in the traditional parties and, even at the center, Europe has gone from the rank of necessity to that of accused. It has now become fashionable to attack European construction and totally unrealistic to defend it. Sometimes the smartest arguments are the most dangerous. Compliance has changed sides.
A series of unheard bugle blasts
This shaking is due to several causes and does not date back to a few months. Over the past ten years, bugle calls and alerts have multiplied. All popular consultations on a European issue for ten years (France and the Netherlands 2005, Ireland 2007, Netherlands and the United Kingdom 2016) have resulted in a more or less resounding "No" (3). Each time, Europe kicked into touch, believing that the mob was not directed against it but against national leaders, explaining why all this does not matter. An argument that ignored a serious fact: Europeans no longer understand Europe, no longer know where it is going, what it wants. Read also: The bicycle method is dead. The cyclist has fallen!
React or commit suicide...
The time of 'open all the borders and you will live better', 'with the TTIP, each family will earn several hundred euros more' modern versions of a 'close your eyes, I manage', does not work anymore, does not imprint more on people's consciences. Europe now has no choice but to react — and quickly — or to resolve to a certain “strategic” withdrawal. The nationalist surge that is observed in many countries could make it possible to save a few years on this obliteration... But it will only be a disastrous illusion.
(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)
(1) The economic and social ties with Turkey are so numerous that the country cannot be considered completely foreign even if it is not a member of the EU. Added to this is the EU-Turkey agreement on Syrian and other refugees arriving in Turkey. An agreement which makes it possible to prevent a new wave of immigration but 'holds by the throat' the Europeans.
(2) This terminology seems more precise than that of "populism", used today to qualify any movement, any policy. It is nationalism which is dangerous in itself for Europe, not the populism which has always existed (including in the European ranks).
(3) One can criticize the use of the referendum in this type of question. On the other hand, emphasizing the criterion of abstention in order to deny this election a certain value seems to me a mistake. These referenda have often been marked by a satisfactory vote (more than 50% of voters - except the vote in the Netherlands on the association agreement in Ukraine). And the very fact that some voters do not move is not automatically in favor of European legitimacy. It can also be interpreted by disinterest. Which is almost worse than a No vote. In both cases, it is better to be challenged by these results than to spend time minimizing their importance or denying their intelligence.
Read also:
