Event Highlights: Europe in Crisis: Is There a Way Out: A Conversation with Loukas Tsoukalis
Vivien Schmidt interviews Loukas Tsoukalis, Pierre Keller Visiting Professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School. Tsoukalis has taught in some of the leading universities in Europe, such as Oxford, London School of Economics, Sciences Po in Paris and the European University Institute in Florence. He is presently Professor of European Integration at the University of Athens, President of the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP), Greece’s leading think tank, and Visiting Professor at King’s College in London and the College of Europe in Bruges.
Loukas Tsoukalis is author of The New European Economy, and What Kind of Europe? published by Oxford University Press (OUP) and translated into several languages; joint editor and author of the concluding chapter of The Delphic Oracle on Europe: Is there a Future for the European Union? (OUP, 2011); and author of the Annual Review Lecture (2011) of the Journal of Common Market Studies. He is also a regular contributor to the Sunday edition of the newspaper Kathimerini.
The event began with an introduction of Loukas Tsoukalis by Vivien Schmidt, who outlined the three major crises facing the European Union today: the Eurozone, refugee, and security. Posing a broad question, she asked “I wonder, are these existential crises? Do they represent at least an existential challenge for the EU? And if so, which of the crises is an existential challenge—or all?” Schmidt then briefly discussed the need for deeper European integration given the lackluster policies of the Eurozone crisis, coupled with the closing of external borders, and the questions of Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), lead to the perspective “from this side of the Atlantic, it all looks really bad.” Her concluding remarks before Tsoukalis began speaking revolved around the questions of “where do we go from here? Is there any way forward that can pull this all together?”
Tsoukalis began by explaining how the cumulative effect of the EU being buffered by crises has led to an inability to properly respond. He mentioned how, before 2005, most Europeans were convinced that ambitious projects were working towards cooperation and improving the Member States, under the idea that soft power was the prevailing mode of international behavior in the post-Cold War global order. Tsoukalis pointed to this optimism as reality hit political leaders following the emergence of the various crises, and addressed Schmidt’s questions by saying “they all hit at the very core of European integration”. He described how the Eurozone crisis can be broken into three parts: unpreparedness, bad luck, and denial. He framed how the construction of the Eurozone, from its inception, was unbalanced, lacking both necessary institutions and legitimacy in its base, and how the European Monetary Union (EMU) attempted to “defy the laws of gravity”. However, Tsoukalis admitted the bad luck that the first test of the Eurozone had happened to coincide with the biggest financial crisis since 1929. He then criticized the reaction of the EU elites, as many politicians first claimed the crisis was “only a US problem,” before turning to finger pointing and blaming Greece as the source of the Eurozone’s problems. Tsoukalis explained how the Greeks were fiscally lax for years, but how, in reality, the larger countries were at fault for the real issues in Greece for lending without limits. He then broke down how the Eurozone crisis is the result of problems of banks and debt, not individual fiscal irresponsibility. Tsoukalis highlighted how Greece provided a convenient scapegoat, an excuse, in the narrative for European creditors such as Germany to pretend that banking was not the root source of the crisis, resulting in banks across European weakening in past years. He outlined how the problem lies in the inefficiency of the EMU, lacking both management and macroeconomic policy at the European level. He finished his point on the Eurozone crisis with the fact that, while the crisis has not been solved, most European countries (other than Greece) have survived the worst of the emergency, but are now facing the question of resolving the issue of economic stagnation. EZ problem – not solved- but we’ve been through the worst (only Greece still suffering), but rest still hurting, just beyond emergency. Now stagnating GDP.
Tsoukalis then said, while the “EZ is a problem that can be dealt with; the refugee crisis is not one that can be dealt with.” He described the “wide arc of instability” surrounding Europe, and how the neighborhood imploded following the Arab Spring in 2011 which led to the increasing number of refugees, migrants, and terrorists, who in turn link up with home grown extremists. Tsoukalis explicitly stated that there is no way to stem the flow of refugees and immigrants, but emphasized that her believes Europe should provide refuge to a point. He explained how there is only so many migrants Europe can accommodate before humanitarian efforts become difficult. Tsoukalis explained how Syrian refugees flooding into Europe from their war-torn homeland have provided a window of opportunity for economic migrants across the Middle East and North African who have jumped at the opportunity to enter Europe. He pointed out how European society and political atmosphere are severely underprepared and unable to support millions of incoming peoples, and how the only ‘winners’ are the right wing parties spreading across the EU. Tsoukalis explained the paradox faced by Greek officials, as other Member States demand stronger border defenses while humanitarian missions are rescuing migrants in the Aegean Sea, asking: “Do we shoot them? Or let them drown? What exactly is ‘defense of the border’?” He then broke down the deal made between Angela Merkel of Germany and the President Erdogan of Turkey, citing how the potential to stem the flow of migrants to Europe from the East will merely force Lampedusa (off the coast of Italy) to become a major entry point, as the failed Libyan state will attract many smugglers hoping to profit from refugees attempting to enter Europe. Tsoukalis also stated that Russia will become the next entry point, as Putin will not stop the flood of migrants from pressuring the European systems. He ended with the prediction of “pretty ugly things in the future” as Europeans will be forced to use other methods of deterrence, citing the Australian decision to shoot at boats until the message got across, finishing by stating: “I don’t look forward to that”.
Tsoukalis then address the issue of security, given the dissolution of the European illusion of safety. Following the Cold War, Europe’s arrangement under the American security umbrella allowed softer power, which in turn resulted in a “misguiding understanding for how soft power can go.” Tsoukalis cited this failure to recognize Vladimir Putin’s realist interpretation of the world, stating that Putin’s relations with Ukraine “are OUR fault NOT Mr. Putin’s fault. We totally mishandled the situation in Ukraine”. He explained how the both the US and Europe failed on this point, as the bold actions taken by American foreign ministers to lead public protests and encourage riots against the local governments pushed the divided country of Ukraine to a breaking point. Tsoukalis explained how we must encourage the principles of democracy and human rights, while recognizing the necessity of realpolitik. He then described the failure of the Member States to handle home grown terrorists, given the ineffective assimilation and multicultural approaches attempted, resulting in imported extremists promoting violence on European soil. Tsoukalis noted how security is a major issue in Europe, as the ‘givens’ are disappearing, stating: “life is going to become difficult, and increasingly unpleasant,” regarding how the increase in securitization will impact the daily lives of most Europeans. He ended his opening remarks for the conversation by warning the “picture is not very bright, and we have difficult days ahead”.
Schmidt then posed the question: “what about European integration?” asking whether a centralization around a hard Eurozone core would be more (or less) successful than increasingly differentiated integration, focused on deepening of institutions and changing of arrangements in addition to the common EU institutions seen today. Tsoukalis responded with: “I have no doubts: if the European project is to survive, you will need more policy integration… especially the Eurozone… but what do you do with a EZ that is already so heterogeneous? How do you deal with misfits?” After a brief metaphor regarding the Catholic Church, he stated that he had no doubt that the future of the EU (“if there is a future”) is based on increasing differentiation and integration, and the formation of a new set of institutions for the EMU. Schmidt asked whether a similar solution could be posed for the migrant crisis, asking about the potential for different immigration zones, and Tsoukalis responded that there is a possibility for such a deal. However, he noted that Central and Eastern Europe are very worrying, as the transition to the European market and democracy was difficult, and has many problems, but it has been convenient for European elites to remain in denial. Tsoukalis announced, “The EU should be the protector of democracy,” following will a call for EU institutions to use their power to play this role, to recognize that “Europe has bargaining power,” that it has yet to use, but should in the future of preserving the minimum rules of liberal democracy.” He explained how many Central and Southern European countries dislike the non-Christian immigrants, so he proposed that the EU use it bargaining power against countries refusing to take in migrants, stating that they should be forced to pay more to the European border security guard.
Schmidt then opened the conversation to the audience, who posed questions regarding many issues facing the European Union today, including how the refugee crisis has forced countries to stand up, resulting in fracturing over solidarity, multiculturalism, and terrorism. Tsoukalis briefly outlined the potential for a UK independent of the EU following the Brexit vote, and explained some of the causes and potential outcomes of such a decision. The conversation ended with a discussion of various political movements across Europe based on broad divisions, such as right vs. left, North vs. South, and East vs. West.
Listen to the event on Sound Cloud:
This event takes place as part of a series of conversations on issues pertinent to democratic politics in the US and Europe tentatively titled “Interferences.” Organized as part of EU Futures, a series of initiatives exploring the emerging future in Europe. The EU Futures project is supported by a Getting to Know Europe Grant from the European Commission Delegation in Washington, DC.