As I sat down to write this piece last week Europe was shaken by yet
more terrorist attacks: the first was in (Munich) Germany, a country that
has largely avoided terrorist incidents, when a deranged 18-year- old
went on a shooting spree, killing nine people, while the second act of
savagery occurred just outside Rouen, France, when two terrorists
murdered an 85-year- old Catholic priest in a church by slitting his
throat.
Europe seems to be going from one crisis to another. But is Europe’s future as bleak as the media and some analysts suggest? Add Britain’s decision (Brexit) to leave the European Union, a low birth rate, abysmal economic growth, and failure to fully integrate immigrants (most of whom are Muslim), and one is tempted to conclude that Europe is facing a deep abyss. Here’s why the situation is problematic but not as bleak as some policy experts might infer. It all comes down to what choices Europeans make with regard to some crucial questions.
Terrorism
We seem to be living in an age of terror as the following summary of events suggests:
- January 7, 2015, two terrorists force their way into the offices of a French magazine (Charlie Hebdo) in Paris, killing 11;
- November 13, 2015, gunmen carry out another mass shooting in Paris, including at a concert in the Bataclan theatre, killing 130 people;
- July 14, 2016, 84 people are killed when a truck is intentionally driven into crowds celebrating Bastille Day in Nice, France.
These are all tragic events but Europe has seen worse. Terrorism is nothing new to Europeans, and neither are wars and religious conflict. Terrorist groups like the Red Brigade (Italy), Irish Republican Army (UK), and the Baader-Meinhof Group (Germany), came and went. Their actions in the long term had little effect on European society. Europe survived and these groups became minor footnotes in European history. The same will occur to the fanatics attempting to terrorize Europe today.
The fact of the matter is that the last 71 years have been among the most peaceful in European history. Except for the brutal implosion of Yugoslavia in the 90s, Europe has seen little violence. European civilization has never had it so good. No two countries are at war; most national boundaries are etched in stone; and terrorist acts are sporadic at best.
But back to the terrorist attacks. Olivier Roy, a prominent French academic, rightly reminds us that these acts are mainly committed by troubled youth living dysfunctional lives. And as Professor Roy further argues, the over whelming majority of European Muslims don’t support the acts of a few deranged terrorists acting out their frustrations by attempting to hijack a religion they don’t even understand or practice. In short, there’s no coherent and well organized attempt to overthrow European civilization as demagogues like Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump might lead us to believe.
Europe as an economic entity
The European Union is made up of 28 member states with an estimated population of 500 million. The EU’s aim is to promote the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital. It has accomplished this goal by creating a single market across its territory, along with a common monetary union known as the Eurozone. Here are some basic facts: EU member states own the estimated largest net wealth in the world; 161 of the top 500 largest corporations are headquartered in the EU; 26 out of 28 EU countries have a very high standard of living according to the UN; EU states are among the world’s largest exporters of goods; and lastly, Germany, the UK, France, and Italy are among the top nine economies in the world. The current unemployment rate is around 9%, high by US standards, but a generous welfare system cushions the impact.
The big question of course is whether Britain’s eventual departure will
hurt the EU. Most likely it won’t be an issue if we remember that both
the Brits and the Europeans need one another as customers. The Brits
have the largest economy in Europe after the Germans, and German
industry needs a market for its goods.
Already Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, and Teresa May, the
newly appointed UK Prime Minister, have signaled a willingness to treat
Britain’s departure in a rational manner. Retaliation by either side would
lead to a mutual economic depression that neither side can afford. In any
case, article 50 of the Treaty on European Union provides for a two year
exiting period from the moment a departing country gives its official
notice. This should give both sides ample time to cool down.
The other issue for the Europe Union, regardless of whether Britain leaves within the next two years, is how it defines itself. Is it truly evolving into a political union, a United States of Europe as one might call it, or is it simply an economic union, as the Brits understand it? Perhaps with Britain exiting the common market, Europe, led by Germany and France, might finally forge that political union.
But there will be a price to pay as smaller states may come to resent domination by its larger counterparts. Will some of them, led by Hungary, also choose to exit? Whether political union occurs will consequently depend on whether smaller states are provided with ample political power. A good example of shared power might be an upper house in the European Parliament where each state receives equal representation regardless of population. This is the case in the US where each state receives two senate seats (the upper house) regardless of population. Are larger states like Germany and France ready to share power with its smaller members? Of course this would also have to be a Parliament with real democratic powers as enjoyed by the US House of Representatives.
The original European Union (known in 1951 as the European Coal and Steel Community) was comprised of Germany, France, Italy, and the Benelux countries (Luxemburg, Belgium and the Netherlands). Will the EU choose to shrink in size in an attempt to forge a more coherent and manageable federal state? This could very well be an alternative to an expanded EU. A union without a cash strapped country like Greece may be what taxpayers in Germany prefer. And the fact that countries like Hungary and Poland are electing right wing regimes intent on curbing civil liberties may make these states unacceptable to Brussels. Remember, the EU is an association of liberal democratic states. A clash of political culture may consequently result in states like Hungary and Poland choosing to leave or being asked to do so by larger states like Germany and France.
Immigration
Immigration is where the Europeans have got it wrong, at least in comparison to other western countries like the US, Canada, and Australia. Europe has a low birth rate and needs to find replacement workers. As a result, millions have immigrated to Europe, especially to Germany and France. The problem is not where these millions are coming from, but how they’re being received.
In France, for example, many are kept in satellite cities, creating subsidized ghettoes where integration becomes impossible. Well over a million refugees from Iraq and Syria have meanwhile entered Germany in the past year alone by crossing through Turkey, Greece, and Central Europe. These desperate souls are rightly provided with housing and health care. But Germany like France has the same problem: Are its policies integrating immigrants or creating parallel societies where immigrants live separate lives?
Countries like Germany and France walk a tight rope. On the one hand,
European laws and a basic sense of decency and compassion require
policymakers to provide asylum to both political and economic refugees.
But they also have their constituents (aka voters) to worry about. Will
increased immigration fuel the far right? That certainly seems to be the
situation in France where millions consistently vote for the National
Front. And the far right is also gaining support in Scandinavian countries fuelled by the arrival of Muslim immigrants and refugees. How European
lawmakers deal with the immigration issue will to a large extent
determine both the future of Europe’s economic prosperity and whether
its citizens enjoy social harmony.
The Rise of female politicians
Europe then has some choices to make and it seems to have made some good ones at least with regard to the empowerment of women. A case in point is Angela Merkel. Chancellor of Germany since 2000, she is by far the most respected leader in Europe if not the world, and unlike Hillary Clinton, carries neither moral nor political baggage. Her treatment of the one million refugee claimants that have entered Germany in the past year is stellar and unparalleled, at least in recent history, and she remains the most popular and respected leader in Europe despite this influx. The fact that the leader of the world’s fifth largest economy is a woman should hopefully not go unnoticed by heads of large corporations that refuse to hire women for top positions.
Other important female politicians include Teresa May, newly appointed Prime Minister of the UK, Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund since 2011, and Federica Mogherini, the current High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Lastly, Italian mayoralty victories by Chiara Appendino (Turin) and Virginia Raggi (Rome) signal that even socially conservative countries like Italy are increasingly seeing the importance of gender empowerment.
Conclusion
To say that Europe is at a crossroads is to use a tired cliché. But Europe does have important policy decisions to make with regard to the future of the EU, immigration, and economic development. Perhaps Brexit was a sort of gift by the reluctant Brits to the rest of Europe. The UK was always a reluctant member, never fully in or fully out. Should some of the smaller states also leave if national autonomy is their primary concern? Consider this: The original six founding members would still constitute one of the world’s largest trading entities if it were in existence today minus the other member states.
Europe remains a liberal democracy based on the rule of law and one of the best places to live in the world. Its quality of life is unparalleled. Europe also does not have a Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin to deal with. Nor does it have the gun violence or conflict over social issues that one sees in the US, whether in regard to gay rights or abortion.
Europe may never evolve into a full federal state as many dream of. Yet the creation of a free market where people and goods can travel freely remains a great achievement. Whether the dream of a more politically unified Europe can ever emerge comes down to whether its leaders can deal with the thorny issue of immigration.
European leaders must remember why the EU was created. It wasn’t to solve the world’s problems. Never for example did its founders conceive of Europe as a place where millions fleeing a Shia/Sunni conflict in the Middle East would find refuge. But the EU is also part of the larger world community and has both legal and moral obligations to treat migrants with humanity. It also has, however, domestic political realities to deal with. Finding the right political balance will take political ingenuity. Let’s hope that leaders like Angela Merkel are up to the task.