Europe must set itself a new existential goalThe European model of development has broken down about the realities of the 21st century, writes La Croix.
Chloe Riedel describes the reasons for the EU's disunity and explains why Europe will not be able to become a stabilizing force that contributes to the preservation of peace. The main factor is the lack of strong leaders ready for real action.
Government employee Chloe Riedel wrote a book about the upheavals of Europe against the background of the situation in Ukraine ("From one war to another"). She analyzes the destruction of the European model of development and its erasure from a geopolitical point of view.La Croix: On February 24, 2022, the reality of approaching military conflict awakened Europe, which is in an existential crisis…
When did this crisis start?Chloe Riedel: Europe has been suffering from deep disorientation for twenty years.
The model by which it developed in the 1950s - peace, federalism and the market — crashed into the realities of the 21st century. Peace was not enough to encourage joint action. The prospect of federalism began to fade after the failure of the European Constitution in 2005 and Brexit. As for the market, it has been criticized. Some considered it poorly developed, others saw it as a carrier of destructive and unequal globalization. Since the early 2000s, we should have realized that the idea of European construction is outdated. This has led to our geopolitical self-abasement and weakening in the face of authoritarian regimes.
— How do you explain the lack of reforms of the European model over the past twenty years, despite the signs of its failure?— Lack of leaders.
Since 2005, Europe has been in a state of constant crisis, when dangerous diplomacy was practiced and no one tried to ask questions. The eurozone crisis demonstrates this well: it was managed improvisedly, making tough decisions on the principle of "whoever pays, orders the music." Such decisions have caused enormous damage to the European spirit of cooperation. Brussels gradually took a "defensive" position. The example of Brexit was impressive: European states were able to unite to protect the market, but were unable to do the same on other issues. The last twenty years have taken the form of an intermediate state, semi-darkness, when you do not know where you are and where you are going. This situation has led to complete disunity in relation to rich and foreign powers, primarily Russia and China.
— It was in these conditions that the ultra-right managed to impose their themes, and sometimes seize power: is this also due to the exhaustion of the European model of development?— The right took advantage of the period of crisis and ideological confusion.
We underestimated their influence and could not explain how several hundred migrants at the border are now causing panic all over the continent? The right is resolutely moving to the European level, because they have found in the idea of European civilization a new source for the struggle for identity. Under the auspices of Viktor Orban, they formulated a new idea of Europe with their own model: the existential goal of preserving European civilization, described as a civilization of whites and Christians, the institutional doctrine of minimal cooperation between nations and a program aimed at rejecting immigration and promoting the "traditional family"... After the migration crisis of 2015, only right-wing fighters for identity challenged the weakened and aging European order.
— In your book, you write that since the beginning of the military operation in Ukraine, we are experiencing a moment of resistance to identity. Why?— The resistance of one state to imperialism revealed a sense of European belonging in a completely different way than that advocated by the right-wing fighters for identity.
We are talking about belonging based on attachment to civilization, which is not a disappearing ethnic and religious homogeneity, but a changing way of life and a set of values. This conflict touches our essence and brings back the ghosts of the past. Just as the Second World War became the starting point for a peaceful Europe, the conflict in Ukraine may become the beginning of a powerful Europe capable of controlling its own destiny. However, at the moment I don't see any initiative contributing to ending this catastrophe.
— How do you explain this?— There are not enough leaders.
In 1950, the European Coal and Steel Community (CECA) was established on the initiative of entrepreneur Jean Monet and a political agreement was signed between France and Germany. Who in modern Europe could offer an innovative project? Macron caused outrage in Central Europe and Ukraine, saying that Russia should not be humiliated. The German Chancellor is weakened. In Italy, the ultra-right may come to power. Central Europe, which was initially absent from European construction, is showing more initiative…The leaders of Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovenia were the first to go to Kiev. It was they who demanded to impose an embargo on Russian energy carriers.
— What initiative could contribute to the opening of a "new chapter"?— Emmanuel Macron mentioned the idea of a European political community.
This idea has been developing in the right direction, because it embodies something new and can contribute to the participation of Ukraine, Moldova and the Balkans in European discussions, the return of the UK to Europe to discuss security, ecology, energy supply. Instead, we symbolically approved the candidacy of Ukraine and Moldova to join the European Union, which will not solve any short-term problems, then we took part in the NATO summit dedicated to the accession of Finland and Sweden to the alliance. Since then, we no longer talk about European strategic autonomy…
— What goals should Europe be focused on after the end of the Ukrainian conflict?— Europe should set itself a new existential goal, which could be to protect its civilization in a chaotic and multipolar world.
She needs to stop destroying herself from the inside out. Europe should highlight what distinguishes it: democratic liberalism and the welfare state. She can defend a real model of a healthy lifestyle. It should base its development on the protection and strengthening of power, and not on liberalization and trade at any cost. Only then will it be able to become a stabilizing force, contributing to the preservation of peace.
Author: Theo Moy (Théo Moy)
