Juncker’s dangerous defence strategy

Thesedays, there are just three events that bring together all of the mainactors in international politics: the annual General Debate of theUnited Nations General Assembly, G20 summits, and the Munich SecurityConference. That makes it all the more disappointing that the latestMSC, which took place in mid-February, brought only one big idea – andnot a good one.The MSC has long been a place not just to see and beseen, but also to hear and be heard. Yet, at this year’s meeting, whatwas not said seemed to speak louder than what was. Post-mortems of thegathering amounted to something of an indictment of the increasinglyrudderless global order. Observers largely focused on how little in theway of new ideas or innovative solutions there was, despite muchhandwringing about the state of the world.This stands in starkcontrast to years past. In 2015, the MSC helped to generate momentum forthe subsequent deal on Iran’s nuclear programme. Last year, it was atthe MSC that key members of US President Donald Trump’s administrationfirst met their global counterparts. In 2007, Russian President VladimirPutin famously used the MSC to present his stark worldview, in a speechthat presaged Russia’s interventions in Georgia and Ukraine.At thisyear’s conference, the one big idea was European Commission PresidentJean-Claude Juncker’s call to shift authority over foreign and defencepolicymaking in the European Union from the member states to theCommission. But, while Juncker is right to assert that the EU shouldtake steps to ensure that it can act effectively in world politics, hisapproach is deeply flawed.To assume a leading role in the world, theEU needs a culture and incentives that support genuine cohesion andco-operative action. Rather than take the time to achieve that, Junckerwants to take a short cut, arguing that, when it comes to foreign anddefence policies, the EU cannot be required always to achieve unanimity.Andyet the EU is founded on an agreement that, in exchange for membership,states relinquish a certain degree of sovereignty in some areas. Butforeign and defence policy are areas where states are supposed to retainauthority. Flippantly attempting to change that bargain eschewspolitical realities and threatens to set the European project on adangerous course.Juncker’s proposal at the MSC echoes similarrecommendations on the single market, which he floated in his 2017 Stateof the Union address. Both are part of a broader effort to shift powerfrom the European Council to the Commission – an effort that Junckerbuttressed by recently appointing his Svengali, Martin Selmayr, as theCommission’s secretary-general, the body’s top civil-service job.Now,Selmayr – who, as Juncker’s chief of staff, has been compared tofigures like Machiavelli and Rasputin – will have far greater influence,including over the selection of a new Commission president next year.The way the appointment was carried out – shrouded in secrecy, in orderto avoid the involvement of member states – should do more than raiseeyebrows.But such machinations are merely a symptom of a deeperproblem with Juncker’s approach. The problem is not that his approachmay succeed – a functioning United States of Europe would achieve a lot –but rather that it cannot. Europeans are simply not prepared to cedemore sovereignty to the EU. Since the global financial crisiserupted a decade ago, Europe has been firmly in inter-governmental mode.The last thing it needs is another grand-sounding scheme that it is notin a position to carry out. Between the Economic and Monetary Union,the Banking Union, and the Energy Union – each of which was launchedwith great fanfare and is now adrift – the EU already has plenty ofthose.Rather than politely applauding castles in the sky, EUofficials and member governments need to work, with a frank andrealistic mindset, to build consensus on foreign and security issues.This means not changing the rules at the top, but rather buildingcohesion from below.To ensure that this effort does not end up beingdragged out interminably, as so many EU discussions do, we should beginwith concrete objectives. The Permanent Structured Cooperation in thefield of defence – agreed by the European Council last December – is agood place to start, with countries increasing, for example, jointstrategic planning at the European level. Inspired by German ChancellorAngela Merkel’s recent proposal to tie EU funding to the acceptance ofmigrants, member states should also work to create stronger incentivesfor co-operation.There is no question that it is difficult for 27sovereign countries to act as one. But, as tempting as it may be, tryingto paper over differences or avoid dissent – let alone destroying thecompact at the core of the European project – will not make matters anyeasier. The only way to get where Europe needs to go is through arealistic and gradual effort to build unity. For Europe, it is this thatshould be the key lesson of the MSC. – Project Syndicate* AnaPalacio, a former Spanish foreign minister and former senior vicepresident of the World Bank, is a member of the Spanish Council of Stateand a visiting lecturer at Georgetown University.