Europe is facing decisive challenges for its future. On the political side, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has forced a decisive response from European countries, not just those of the East. As Putin's spokespersons clearly state, the real objective of the war is to disarticulate Europe since it is the European countries which, according to Russian plans, should free themselves of "vassalage" towards the United States and accept a new world order in which Moscow would have fundamental role.
From an economic point of view, the challenge launched by the USA with a massive support plan for its industry could damage European companies which, without public aid, could not keep pace with American technological advances.
On these issues we asked a few questions to Riccardo Perissich, who for over twenty years held top positions at the European Commission and then had important experiences in Italian companies with a strong international presence.
Doctor Perissich, against the background of these two themes there is the revival of nationalism which concerns all countries to a certain extent. Perhaps the difficulties encountered by globalization, the imbalances created in the various economies, the growing popularity of authoritarian regimes deemed more capable of managing uncertainty than democracies, are driving many citizens to withdraw into the confines of the old states. And this, on the contrary, just as the war unleashed by Russia has seemingly strengthened Western solidarity both politically and militarily. Is it an apparent cohesion due to fear of Russia or a good basis on which it will be possible to strengthen the cohesion of Europe and the relationship with the United States, maintain free markets and preserve democracies?
“In a sense, nationalism has never disappeared. After all, defining it and distinguishing it from patriotism which is instead a positive value is not always simple. What is indisputable is that the rapid changes in the current world, internal and international, have everywhere strengthened identities: religious, territorial, social, ethnic, and therefore also national. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Another indisputable thing is the setback of an international order that we defined as "post-Westphalian", that is, an order in which the sovereignty of the actors is mitigated by shared international rules and institutions. The real danger however is when nationalism becomes aggressive; often nourished at the same time by a sense of superiority and a sense of vulnerability of one who feels surrounded by hostile powers. It was what led to the ruin of the European nationalisms of the late 800s and first half of the 900s; in Germany above all, but not only. Today we see the same syndromes in Russia and perhaps, but even less clearly, in China. This type of nationalism is often supported by authoritarian regimes. The unified response of the West (at the same time of Europe and NATO) is fantastic, especially since it was not obvious. It shows some weakness, but so far it has held up and I see no signs of weakening. Indeed, the atrocities committed by Russia strengthen it.”
Europe is also faced with difficult choices from an economic point of view as it will soon have to decide how to respond to the American plan to support its industry to facilitate the green transition. If each European country is authorized by Brussels to carry out an industrial policy of public aid to its own companies on its own, there is a risk of breaking up the single market because not all countries can afford aid of the same measure. Not to mention that in some cases political pressures could lead to financing obsolete industries instead of focusing on innovation.
“What you say is right. Europe never develops on the basis of a plan. Reacts to events. So far, even with various contortions, she has always managed to face the difficulties and strengthen herself. The current challenge is very difficult, also because we have to face war, inflation, the energy crisis and the aftermath of the pandemic at the same time. However, it seems to me that a consensus is emerging on an answer based on three elements: national aid managed by the Commission, a new European aid program and negotiations with the USA. Nothing is acquired, but it seems to me that things mature in the common sense.”
But if Europe fails to set up a common industrial policy in the next few months, there is no risk of leaving all the States free to do what they think is best for them and therefore making the integration process go back, albeit between pauses and uncertainties still went ahead?
“Every time we have a problem with the United States, the effects can be to divide Europeans. We will see the quality of the response. The problem is that to fully measure up we should have the tools of a real political union, but nobody really wants it. So we are doomed to pragmatism. It's been like this for 70 years."
In addition to managing shared resources, Brussels shouldn't also focus on rules capable of unifying national markets both as regards the financial sector and as regards industrial companies where it seems to me that cross-border agreements are often hindered by national governments.
“There is a lack of common rules to give birth to a real capital market, but the rules to make the market work are largely there. The so-called "European champions" must be born from the will of entrepreneurs; politics does not decide them. The problem is governments that talk about European industrial policy, but in reality are thinking about the national one and often hinder mergers. In this game, no one is innocent, but Italy and France are more guilty than others."
Without a common security policy, Europe will never be a transferable interlocutor for the USA and for the rest of the world, starting with Africa and the Middle East. No one trusts countries that once dominated the world but today appear helpless, unable to face the challenges that arise on their borders, see Libya. What are the possibilities of arriving at a European army in a reasonable time?
“This is perhaps the most difficult step. All European construction is based on the assumption that sovereignty is divisible and that it is possible to transfer small pieces of it to Europe, keeping the rest in the hands of the states. So far we have succeeded. We have even made a single currency without a central government. It is not said that the operation is also possible for defense. Having an army is potentially deciding to send people to die. Who has the right to decide it for everyone and how? We are very far from this; it is truly the heart of sovereignty. For the moment there is a double beneficial effect, so to speak, of the war in Ukraine. On the one hand it has awakened some countries such as Germany and Italy from their long pacifist sleep. On the other hand, it has demonstrated once and for all that European defense and NATO strengthening are not alternatives, but complementary. They are both good starting points.”
