Let’s talk Schengen, and the Future of European Ideals

Photo: Oona Raisanen
Photo: Oona Raisanen

Most of the killers of Charlie Hebdo in January and of November 13th were European passport holders (read here an analysis on the terrorist attacks of November 13). So why should European leaders propose to close Schengen? And why would Europeans feel more secure behind national borders, when French nationals are killing other French citizens? The rationale in dismantling the Schengen agreement is quite ludicrous and ideologically-based. Schengen is one of the great European endeavors, like the Euro, that is facing serious scrutiny because of political unwillingness and reticences by the Member States to fully complete it by fear of losing national sovereignty. Today, the EU Member States, and their citizenries, can only blame themselves for having failed to complete such mechanisms in the name of national sauvegarde. The EU is facing its worst crises not because of its inefficiency, but rather because of its incomplete construction. No one should expect a sailing boat to sail without its sails.

Protecting the Homeland

Should Schengen be blamed for the attacks on Paris? Not at all. Schengen is a legal agreement not an actor. The open-border agreement was put into force 20 years ago and counts 22 EU Member States plus 4 non-EU states. Schengen can only succeed if its members are willing to guarantee that all the mechanisms are properly enforced. Not enough coverage has been done about the lack of police and intelligence cooperation between EU Member States. In order to enforce Schengen and guarantee its success, which implies national security, the Frontex agency was created, but has never been empowered or even properly funded. The best example is the border assistance program off the coast of Italy, wherein Frontex has a huge mandate without substantial human and material capabilities, as well as fund (read here a recent analysis on the Joint Operation Triton). In an interview for the New York Times, Jan Techau of the Carnegie Europe said “those trying to benefit from the situation, are trying to redefine the entire Schengen debate in a way that makes Schengen look like the culprit here.”

Brookings

Schengen can only be as good depending on the protection of the European common borders and neighborhoods. EU Member States have been risk-averse for too long and have free-rided their security responsibilities on NATO. Now Ukraine is split in two and is fighting a vicious civil war. Europe let Russia took Crimea almost two years ago and has yet to fully criticized such violation of international law. In the Middle East and North Africa, Europe has not followed up on its promises and short-term engagements like in Libya and Syria. Since 2011 (in the case of Libya) and 2013 (in the case of Syria), Europe has been looking the other way and avoiding to deal with the root causes of today’s crises. Now Europe is dealing with the worst migration crisis of the 21st century, and instead of seeking to address the root causes and take a human approach to welcoming refugees, EU Member States have chosen short-termism once again and blamed the other. Only Germany and Sweden have welcomed refugees in large quantity and the rest of Europe is instead talking of building fences, selecting only christian among the Syrian refugees, and so forth.

Cartoon: KAL in the Economist of November 21st, 2015
Cartoon: KAL in the Economist of November 21st, 2015

No EU Member State, at the exception of France, has been willing to participate in the war effort against ISIS and even finding a political solution for Syria. EU Member States are incapable to think strategically and refuse to spend money in their national foreign and defense policies. Instead of building an army, why not strategically pooling ressources at the European level through the empowerment of the CSDP and military industrial production (here is the link to a book on CSDP). EU Member States, France included, rather protect one military industrial sector, for short term political gain, than really building up a common army and a common industrial military complex. If EU Member States are unwilling to go it alone or simply spend money into their militaries, then the EU alternative should be the appropriate one. What the 21st century has proven to experts and leaders is that realpolitiks are well alive and shaping foreign policy decision-making. The European neighborhoods are demonstrating the need to boost-up military capabilities in order to assure the basic security of the homeland, which most EU Member States are unable to do and provide.

Falling into the Nationalist Trap

In the whole debate about freedom, empowering the state, and dismantling the core aspects of the European Union, one player has been purposely absent, British Prime Minister David Cameron. If Britain has demonstrated warmly its support to France ensuing the attacks, Cameron has been quiet and to some extent welcoming the ideological debate about the EU and Schengen. Weeks after sending his letter to President of the Council, Donald Tusk, wherein PM Cameron is asking for less human Europe and more for a trade agreement (read here an analysis on the letter), David Cameron is simply looking at European capitals offering him what he has been asking and campaigning for: less Europe and more national power. It is very unfortunate to see these attacks against the European project and the reactions from European capitals.

The Schengen agreement is one of the greatest successes and materialization of the European project. Seeing France overreacting and shifting towards an almighty executive-power led country is worrisome. The extension of the ‘state of emergency’ for an additional three months can be explained considering the existing threats representing by ISIS affiliates in the homeland and the upcoming COP-21 meeting in December. The French government does not

Photo: GettyImages/AFP
Photo: GettyImages/AFP

want to see another attack during the international climate talks as it would undermine its abilities to protect the homeland and offer a primetime moment for terrorists. France is shifting dangerously towards extreme right. The call to extent the state of emergency is one thing, but closing the borders and seeking to remove French nationality to bi-nationals are straight from the Front National playbook. Not only they violate French republican values and principles, but they validate to a scared and emotional french electorate that the policies advocated by the Front National for decades are actually legitimate. The Socialist government is empowering the extreme right and could make such fascist party even more acceptable. Marine le Pen, President of the Front National, is absolutely correct when talking to the press that the current government is implementing her policies.

Intensifying the bombing over Syria and building a coalition, which has legal legitimacy after the approval of the United Nation Security Council Resolution 2249, which condemns the terrorist attacks and calls on members states to act against ISIS, are appropriate foreign policy measures. But at home, François Hollande ought to lead by empowering the existing European mechanisms, calling for greater cooperation at the European level, and sticking to French democratic values without falling into the nationalist trap. These steps would be symbols of leadership and show to Europeans and terrorists that France is not scared and feels confident in its legal and political structures developed by President Charles de Gaulle in the early years of the Fifth Republic. For the French government and citizenry, this is not just about terrorism, but as well about how France deals with the migration crisis, the euro crisis and national social tensions and inequalities. Right now, it looks like ISIS is winning and this is well too bad. François d’Alançon, a french analyst, said about the Europe ideal and project that “it’s all gone, it’s just a big fog.”

(Copyright 2015 by Politipond. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission).

The End of European Illusions or The Return of Geopolitics

121012093203-eu-flags-hands-story-top

Five years ago, the European project, known as the European Union (EU), was perceived and seen as a boring endeavor between a group of rich and developed nations. The EU was described as the future of the nation-state, some type of postmodern-entity striving within a complex anarchical system. Robert Kagan even portrayed the EU as a 21st century entity facing a 19th century power, Russia. Instead of asking complex questions about EU strategies in dealing with complex geopolitical dynamics, most international relations scholars and experts were looking at technical issues about power relations between small sub-agents within European institutions to explain decision-making and norms-formations. For over a decade, big questions were set aside for technicalities such as: Is the EU able to defend its interests on the European continent? Has the EU developed clear redlines on how to handle threat on the European continent and its neighborhoods? How would EU Member States behave and act under direct threat?

To some degree, these high politics questions were avoided the same way problematic questions about the limited degree of fiscal integration could jeopardize the whole European experiment in case of a crisis affecting the Euro. For over 20 years, EU Member States have lived with the illusion of a region free of geopolitics, a region free of forces possibly leading to another continental war. Ukraine is demonstrating that such geopolitical-less region was an illusion that Member States were happy to buy into. Ukraine in some ways marks the end of the European illusion, which was not the case in 2008 with Georgia.

European illusion of perpetual peace, growth and stability ended abruptly with the global financial crisis. The global crisis spiraled into a Eurozone crisis affected most Eurozone

Credit: © picture-alliance/dpa
Credit: © picture-alliance/dpa

and non-Eurozone members. Despite the crisis, the Euro has remained a strong currency after the Dollar, but has been perceived domestically as the cause of all European traumas. The Eurozone crisis has exposed a two-speed Europe. The Northern Members, led by Germany, have until recently survived the crisis – even though German economy is showing signs of weaknesses -, while Southern Members have simply sought to survive and save the last elements of the post-World War two welfare state. These financial and economic turmoils have shifted into unsustainable political and societal situations in most weakened EU Member States such as France, Italy, Spain among others. The rise of the extremes has been a reality that Europeans have to live and deal with. The crisis has directly threatened the core of European welfare state.

Regionally, the European continent is far from being this safe-heaven free from territorial conquest and traditional war. Russia under Putin has sought to reaffirm its sphere of influence over ‘lost’ territories and strengthen its regional and global relevance. Putin’s Russia can only exist through foreign attention/recognition, especially from NATO countries. Putin’s interpretation of history, at least Russian history, is key in order to

Credit: AP Photo/RIA-Novosti, Mikhail Klimentyev, Presidential Press Service
Credit: AP Photo/RIA-Novosti, Mikhail Klimentyev, Presidential Press Service

understand his actions since in power in 2000. Putin looks back at the lost decade of the 90s as a dark moment in Russian history initiated by Western powers. The then NATO and EU enlargements of Eastern and Central European states were perceived as an attack on Russian national interests. Putin has developed a foreign policy embedded into realpolitik. The use of energy as a weapon against Ukraine almost every winter has been a calculated move by Putin to send a clear signal to Western Europe. But the turning point was the 2008 war against Georgia. At this point, Russia clearly underscored the gap in Western narratives – read NATO and the EU – between commitments to protection of non-NATO members and actions to protect/defend them from Russia. The Ukrainian crisis is the latest illustration of Western risk aversion and unease in confronting Russia. Additionally, Euro-Atlantic members are well aware that the Ukrainian crisis started over a trade agreement between Ukraine and the EU. Almost a year later, Ukraine has lost a part of its territory to Russia, Crimea, and is seeing a civil war in its Eastern territories. If a bilateral trade agreement triggered such tensions in Europe, one can only imagine Putin’s reactions and actions following talks on either EU or NATO enlargement with Ukraine.

The latest chapter in NATO summits in Wales incorporated two dimensions: first, coalition building against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS); second, the strategy in addressing Russia. Concerning the first aspect, coalition building against ISIS, President Obama has succeeded in getting his message heard and approved. Following the NATO summit, six EU Member States, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and the United Kingdom, plus Australia, Canada, Turkey, have agreed on joining a US-led coalition against ISIS. However, when it comes to Ukraine, NATO failed to come with a plan, let alone a strategy. If Obama feels confident on degrading and destroying ISIS, the only thing that the West can do against Russia is containing it. The rounds of sanctions against Russia have deepened the tensions between both sides, but have yet to seriously affect Russian economy and influence Putin’s actions.

The decades of European growth from the Treaty of Maastricht (1992) to the Treaty of Lisbon (2009) have seen remarkable deepening and widening processes. In terms of deepening, EU Member States were committed to increasing the integration process of the Union; while the widening process, materialized into four waves of enlargement, led to the inclusion of 16 new Member States. Aside from the regional tensions in the Balkans, the EU was believed to offer its Member States a zone-free of geopolitics, a fortress limiting the dark forces of globalization – immigration, state violence, territorial conquest -. Not only it has never been true considering the violence and wars in the Balkans, but it has certainly been an illusion bought by Member States and incorporated in academic research. The series of crisis starting with the 2007 financial crisis, the Arab Spring, continuous and deepening of violence in the Middle East, and the Ukrainian crisis underscore not only the uneasiness of EU Member States to address them, but also the inabilities of the EU to shape its world. The integration process was so successful that the EU Member States have lost their ways in dealing with geopolitics.

(Copyright 2014 by Politipond. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission).