Europe has lived through several convulsions, including of course the ravages of World War II, but the dream of peace and prosperity eventually embodied in what became the European Union (EU) came true for many. The decision of some of the members for a monetary union in the shape of the euro symbolised a desire for an even closer union. It is, therefore, ironic that the year 2015 has led the concept of New Europe to a major crisis of two dimensions.
The arrival of hundreds of thousands of refugees from the war-torn countries of the Middle East and Africa foxed the EU. There was no common response, with Britain and Denmark refusing to share the burden. Germany has stepped up to the plate splendidly. So did Sweden, but most other member states have been more or less niggardly, apart from Greece and Italy, which have had to bear the brunt of the refugee influx by sea.
The other crisis facing the EU is the future of Greece. It reflected in part Germany’s impatience with a third bailout of billions of euros, accentuated by the coming to power of the once hard Left Syriza party. The eventual agreement, amounting to surrender by Athens after much posturing and resorting to a referendum, shows little promise of happier days because the old failed formula of austerity and reform for money has merely been repeated without debt restructuring. Greeks are understandably tired of five years of privation and even as a majority wishes to stay in the euro zone, they are disdainful of the advice offered at one point by the German finance minister to take time out.
What is particularly distressing for European idealists and a long line of statesmen who conceived and built the European structure, partly to contain German power in a new era, is a distinct mood of gloom in many capitals. Misunderstandings between Germany, the main creditor, and recipient Greece are understandable, but the goblin of nationalism is rearing its head again. Britain must be classed as unique because its attitude of superiority over other Europeans — the feeling that it is a cut above the rest — is a historical legacy and the late Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is revered for securing special opt-out terms for her country. This feat David Cameron is seeking to repeat by promising an in-out referendum on staying in the EU.
Even in Germany, the strongest economic member, there is a small anti-EU party. In Britain, there is the Independence Party. In France, the right-wing National Front, now led by Marine Le Pen, takes a strong nationalist anti-EU line. The young, in these and other member countries, take for granted the benefits of belonging to the EU such as visa-free travel and ability to work where they like. Hungary is a special case in the seemingly extreme political philosophy it preaches and in erecting a border fence to stop the influx of refugees. But it is significant that Britain is seeking to pare down social welfare benefits for new EU workers and is re-erecting other hurdles to discourage large-scale migration by the poorer southern members.
In pure realpolitik terms, the beginning of the European dream was an ideal way to tie down Germany — a main actor in two World Wars — to a new European mooring and thanks to deft German diplomacy, Bonn was able to achieve the seemingly impossible by reuniting the two Germanies, reverting to Berlin as the capital. In a sense, the EU not merely spread peace and prosperity around before a new bout of slow growth spread gloom but also moulded new generations.
Indeed, the surprise has been the rise of nationalism in several member countries to the detriment of the European order.
There seems to be a new feeling among citizens that they have lost power over their own lives to a new bureaucratic organisation. Inevitably, the structural underpinning of the European enterprise by the European Commission and other tiered organisations inevitably implies a process of bureaucratisation. The essential point is how to harmonise policies without giving the impression of an overlord running national affairs.
The most immediate challenge for the EU is how to cope with the seemingly never-ending flow of destitute refugees fleeing wars and mayhem. The phenomenon of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and its growth have given a new handle to ultra-nationalists, particularly in Eastern Europe, to turn away Muslim refugees, the great bulk of the hordes that are making their way into the EU. Indeed, Poland among other countries is selecting Christian Syrian refugees for granting asylum.
Fear of extremists entering Europe in the guise of refugees is strengthening the hands of ultra-nationalists to play their eurosceptic card. All ruling parties in the EU are conscious of the political fall-out of espousing the cause of Middle East refugees in particular, giving it a racial tinge. Even in Germany, which has granted asylum to the largest number of Middle East and African refugees, accommodation for new arrivals has been firebombed in the face of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s public declaration not to be deterred by such acts. Whether the opponents are described as neo-Nazis or otherwise, they are playing the nationalism card.
Where then is the European enterprise heading? The crisis point will not arrive tomorrow, but the EU is facing its moment of truth. In dealing with refugees, as in resolving the larger questions of European integration, corrective steps need to be undertaken urgently to stop the drift towards seeking nationalist solutions to continental problems. It is a shame that the EU has been unable to get its act together to tackle a major humanitarian crisis, the most serious since the exodus triggered by the Balkan wars.
India and much of the rest of the world will hope that the twin crises the EU faces will serve as a wake-up call to the leaders of the member countries. The rise of the Islamic State is a grim reminder of the wages of prevarication.
