Europe needs to rise to its global challenge

Much of the debate on the future of Europe is about the alleged dilemma between widening or deepening the European Union, with the elusive concept of the EU absorption capacity performing as the lynchpin between the two sides of the argument. While not dismissing them, the case should be made for putting these intra-European skirmishes in perspective and widen the debate itself to tackle another dilemma: the choice between proactively shaping the global context of European integration, or simply putting up with it and quite possibly enduring the consequences.

There is no shortage of knowledge and information on the momentous transformations affecting global politics and economics, but political awareness seems sorely lacking and even more so an honest, sensible debate on the implications of change for EU citizens and societies. To condense complex arguments in an accessible format, with some simplification, the three following points could be made.

First, following three centuries of western hegemony, history is back on track and relative power is shifting from the West to other regions. Over the next 20 years, emerging global economic powers, including China and India, will likely consolidate their status and deploy increasing political influence in buffer areas from central and south-east Asia to Africa and the Middle East, challenging the clout and interests of EU countries. In particular, the sustainability of the high economic growth rates of emerging economies will rest on the adequate provision of fossil fuels, with global demand growing faster than supply. With new global players flanking the EU, the US, Russia and Japan, the world will become de facto multipolar and consensus on the agenda of global governance possibly more difficult to achieve.

Second, while more heterogeneous, the world will also be more interdependent. Economic globalisation will continue to expand its reach and so will the flows of goods, services and capital. New technologies already enable the establishment of integrated production processes across different continents, which will probably foster further delocalisation. Both developed and developing countries will need to adjust, the former shifting resources to knowledge-intensive sectors of comparative advantage, the latter upgrading their governance and infrastructure. Required changes, and even more so failure to introduce them, might put societies under considerable stress, notably at a time when economic globalisation is even outpaced by the globalisation of media, communication and perceptions. In many regions of the world, the awareness of strident inequalities, value clashes and the lack of political reform might fuel instability.

Third, demographic, economic and environmental trends point to growing imbalances in some critical regions of the world, most of which surround the EU. From the Middle East to large parts of sub-Saharan Africa, the massive expansion of the population in the presence of sluggish economic growth (except for the export of commodities) and worsening environmental conditions (desertification, water scarcity, urbanisation and human pollution) represent a mix of serious concern. Ethical, political, security and economic considerations are directly at stake, considering that the EU energy supply largely depends on this turbulent neighbourhood, that migratory pressures might increase and that, in the Muslim world, radical Islamism could find fertile ground to spread further.

The EU stands in the middle between global trends and national politics, a position which is becoming increasingly uncomfortable. Because of its size, wealth and influence the Union is naturally called upon to take a strategic look at its long-term interests and to engage with the factors and actors that will affect its security and prosperity. The Union has the potential to become the springboard for EU member states to re-acquire sovereignty by sharing it with one another and devising effective policies in common.

In many member states, however, the political debate seems ever more introspective and defensive, with more or less evident shades of populism. A sense of vulnerability prevents from shifting the political debate from local and national problems to European solutions, where joint action is required. From energy policy to the management of migration and integration, from investment in research, technological development and education to foreign policy itself, co-operation at the European level could bring an added value that is not currently exploited. Too often the principle of subsidiarity is regarded as a one-way street to retain or reclaim competences at the national level of governance.

A review of prospective global trends clearly shows that the roots of many of the challenges that EU countries are confronted with lie beyond the borders of the Union. Solutions cannot possibly lie within the borders of individual European states. Global transformations are happening and are set to accelerate, but their direction and implications are not cast in stone. Political will needs to be mobilised, at the national and European level, to deploy the unique assets and multilateral experience of the Union in order to reform EU internal and external policies and to manage change. Knowledge will be crucial for the relaunch of economic growth. Legitimacy will be crucial for stabilising international relations and underpin sustainable globalisation with adequate governance structures.

Widening the debate on the future of Europe to encompass the global environment of its integration will help European countries and societies to rise up to the challenge of shaping their own future together, and promoting prosperity and stability in Europe and well beyond.

• Nicole Gnesotto is director of the Institute for Security Studies of the European Union (EUISS), Giovanni Grevi is a research fellow at the institute. The EUISS has recently published the report The New Global Puzzle. What World for the EU in 2025?

Much of the debate on the future of Europe is about the alleged dilemma between widening or deepening the European Union, with the elusive concept of the EU absorption capacity performing as the lynchpin between the two sides of the argument. While not dismissing them, the case should be made for putting these intra-European skirmishes in perspective and widen the debate itself to tackle another dilemma: the choice between proactively shaping the global context of European integration, or simply putting up with it and quite possibly enduring the consequences.