Toxic Pettifoggery

Should Europe strive for independence from the United States, like Emmanuel Macron says — or aim for a rapprochement, as German Defense Secretary Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer argues? In reality, the future of the European Union depends on something else.

Imagine, if you will, the following scene: Prior to his first visit to Europe, trans-Atlantic enthusiast President Joe Biden asks his advisers for European affairs what the current European talks regarding foreign affairs are about. “They’re talking about how independent from us they want to be,” replies the adviser. “Oh — and what are they doing?” “They’re debating, Mr. President!” “I’m sorry, you must have misunderstood. What I meant was: What are they preparing — what are they putting on the table in terms of political proposals?” “They … are debating, Mr. President….” “Ah — maybe I should postpone my visits to Paris, Berlin and Brussels until they have reached an agreement?”

Catchphrases with Little Substance

The latest conflict between the French president and the German secretary of defense regarding whether Europe should move forward in concert with the United States or not, is the most recent peak in the long-standing battle of narratives.

A debate has been going on in Europe for more than four years regarding its place in the world, based on illustrious, yet often meaningless phrases. It began with “strategic autonomy.” Even though this term can be found in the foreign affairs strategy of the European Union, it very quickly became toxic. It originated from the debate in France, which worried a lot of people, particularly Central Europeans, that a French conspiracy was in play, with the objective of driving a wedge between NATO, the United States and them. Others tried to seize control of the discussion with the novelty catchphrase “strategic sovereignty.” And so, the originally well-intended debate regarding the European Union’s place in the world becomes a game of buzzwords, in which the expression’s elegance seems to trump substance and practicability. By now, this dispute appears almost religious. He who advocates sovereignty or autonomy is European — and he who does not is trans-Atlantic. As if the two were mutually exclusive.

Narratives Inhibiting Policies

One can only hope for an end to this war of words. But even then, what would it mean for Europe’s ability to act — that is, Europe’s capacity to define its own political, military or economic priorities, to represent Europe and shape its own environment? In reality, none of those terms represents a fully fleshed out political program. Regardless of whether one has a European or trans-Atlantic point of view (or both), it should be self-evident that Europe needs to be more active in all areas. Digital, technological and military weight are needed as bargaining chips, in order to make Europe a player instead of a token. This weight can take the form of a variety of things: innovative technology, the possibility of securing transportation routes for goods, but also the global community asset of freedom of shipping itself, deterring an enemy from an attack it cannot win, or controlling investment in critical infrastructure.

But the current debate about narratives prohibits Europe from having the more important discussion regarding specific policies and budgets, among other things.

Acknowledging Dependency

There is another reason for Europe’s hesitancy to actually move on from debating to realpolitik. If the European heads of state were to actually follow through on decisions pertaining to European defense, for instance, one would have to acknowledge that the scuttlebutt about a revival of the national states’ powers is but a myth.

In recent years, many EU countries have invoked the image of the strong state that protects its citizens and solves their problems. Europe and cooperation were subordinate matters. During these times of intimidating international complexity from climate change to geopolitical instability to the pandemic, the image of a strong state has understandable appeal. But those existential challenges are precisely the reason why no nation can control these risks and protect its citizens by itself. This revives an old realization in a painful way. European countries depend on each other, and on top of that, they increasingly depend on non-European actors as well. They will have to return to a tedious and unglamorous drudgery in order to achieve European cooperation.

An Agenda for Political Action

The ultimate goal of politics is action. Governments must solve their own issues, otherwise, they quickly become delegitimized. Regardless of whether one is interested in the debate about autonomy and sovereignty, Europe faces real international problems.

What is necessary for successful policies is evident as well. Europe must control its dependency (for example, regarding natural resources), reduce vulnerability (for example, regarding the digital infrastructure) and position itself in a way that helps to win conflicts (for example, with Russia or China). For this, Europe must have the necessary tools. With regard to the digital sector and trade, Europe can exert influence via international standards. In the field of security and defense, Europeans can apply conventional and cyber methods to reach their goals.

This potential makes Europe an actor and a valuable ally, with whom it is possible to achieve objectives. In other words: One cannot afford to have Europe as an adversary.

This European power is, first and foremost, a result of cooperation within Europe but also with other allies, specifically the United States. Europe’s ability to expand this capacity is limited. That’s why another aspect of this agenda makes it necessary to weigh the current autonomy wish list against the political and financial price that Europe would have to pay. Then, the Europeans will have to make a decision about where to assign priorities and allot investments in order to decrease the dependence on their allies, but also where to consciously become dependent and what kind of risks they will therefore have to accept.

This political program should be on the agenda for the new U.S. president’s first visit instead of the most elegant narrative. Europe should not blindly embrace the United States — at times it will be an ally, other times a rival. But Europe should already be thinking about the time after this president. That’s why an interest in the best possible relationship with the United States is important for Europe. One can only hope that the president-elect will learn something about concrete European policy and not just about catchy phrases.