February 2022

By Frieda Park

Angela Merkel is no longer German chancellor. Her 16 years in the job saw Germany firmly established as the hegemon in the European Union with France playing second fiddle. The German economy is the biggest in the EU and nothing happens without German approval. Standing on top of this, Merkel was the dominant figure and de facto leader of the bloc. No current politician within Germany or any other EU country can fill the pivotal position that she held. Merkel’s departure will increase strains within the Union.

It is not only she who is leaving office, her party is too. Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union and its sister party the Christian Social Union together recorded their worst performance ever at the German elections in September last year.  It is Olaf Scholz of the Social Democratic Party who is now the new chancellor. Scholz won’t find it easy stepping into Merkel’s shoes. He will have a big job managing the contradictions within the EU and the tensions beyond its borders. His task will be even more difficult as he will also have to manage a diverse coalition of parties in government. In this new, uncertain situation Emmanuel Macron will certainly seek to assert his and France’s authority at Germany’s expense.

Areas of difference within the bloc are over:

• Who leads the EU – Germany or France?
• Further centralisation of power in Brussels versus national sovereignty
• Moves towards fiscal union or not
• Austerity and neo-liberalism imposed on member countries
• Social and political liberalism versus authoritarianism
• Strategic autonomy and an EU army versus alliance with the United States
• Relations and trade with countries outside the EU, particularly Russia and China
• Should the EU expand further? There are growing tensions with countries in the Balkans who had expected to join but are making no progress – not to mention Turkey
• The unequal roles of different countries in repelling and ‘warehousing’ refugees.

ECONOMIC PROBLEMS

There is not only political turbulence, there are economic problems too. The EU’s recovery from the impact of the pandemic has been slower than the United States and China who have both now exceeded pre-pandemic levels. At the end of last year, by contrast, the EU economy remained 3% smaller than before, although there are projections for continued growth. (1) German exports were hit by the pandemic and there was a decline in trade with the UK post-Brexit. The future of its industry, particularly the important car industry and its supply chains, remains uncertain. And there is the challenge of moving from fossil fuel to electric powered vehicles.

Germany is wedded to neo-liberalism which other countries, particularly the United States, are diluting with some state intervention. But Germany has been dogmatic within the EU about sticking to free-markets and austerity and has a “brake” on government debt which limits deficit spending written into its constitution. Scholz, the new Chancellor, is committed to retaining the brake. Although he is seeking to fudge the rules, it would require a 2/3rds majority in the Bundestag to change the constitution, which at present is impossible. The result of this in Germany has been crumbling infrastructure, including digital infrastructure. This rigid adherence, domestically and within the EU, to neo-liberalism means that Germany and the bloc have less flexibility to enact different solutions to address capitalism’s problems. The eventual agreement to issue mutual EU debt, Eurobonds, to help countries over the coronavirus pandemic may not be the start of a new direction, but a one-off not to be repeated.

EU STRATEGIC AUTONOMY

While all US allies were upset by its unilateral withdrawal from Afghanistan, France was absolutely incensed by the sudden announcement of the AUKUS pact and as a consequence the cancellation by Australia of its order for French submarines. The talks aimed at resolving the crisis in Ukraine, and also encompassing wider European security concerns, kicked off in January between Russia, NATO and the US. However, demonstrating the division within the West, the EU was not included at this stage. Discussions about Europe, but without the biggest bloc on the continent.

With the change of government in Germany and the UK out, Macron has become more forceful, particularly in promoting “strategic autonomy” for the EU. This is underpinned by the belief that the EU cannot rely on the United States as an ally and that the EU must develop the capacity to act in its own interests.

While Germany dominates the EU in every other respect, France is its pre-eminent military power, actively intervening in other countries and possessing nuclear weapons. US actions have given a new impetus to those arguing for an EU army. How much headway Macron will make is uncertain, however he assumed the 6-month rotating presidency of the EU on the 1^st of January this year. This puts him in an ideal position to pursue his bid to lead the EU towards greater autonomy, to have an independent army and to define its strategic interests as the EU, not just as individual countries or as part of wider Western alliances. This is a step on from provisions of the Lisbon Treaty and PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation). The budget of the European Defence Fund to develop military cooperation has grown from €590m for 2014-20 to €8bn for 2021-27 and it would have been more but for the Covid pandemic. Macron has the support of Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen – a strong alliance at the top to push this agenda forward. But not all countries in the EU are comfortable with this course and Macron’s outspokenness has signalled further tensions with NATO and the US.

If France/Germany cannot win unanimous support in the EU for these major developments, however, then they are prepared to ignore the wishes of other member states. In November a leaked draft of the EU “Strategic Compass”, its foreign and defence policy, proposed the idea that EU military forces could be deployed without unanimity in the bloc. The plans allow for the deployment of 5000 military personnel and von der Leyen has made clear that the purpose of any such force would be to intervene abroad in conflict zones - that is to say the same failed model of Western war-making that has caused death and destruction across the globe. She also explicitly spelled out that these forces would be independent of NATO.

A statement on EU-NATO cooperation is making slow progress within the EU. There are differences over the issue of EU autonomy between those who want greater freedom of manoeuvre and those who want a close relationship with the US.

By and large of course the big imperialist powers have similar interests in confronting the rise of countries they see as rivals, such as China, Russia and Iran, however, they all want to represent their own interests as well and have their own ideas about how this should happen. This is at the heart of growing tensions. Up till now, under Merkel, Germany preferred a less confrontational approach to Russia and China, developing collaboration on trade, including the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to Germany, which is bitterly opposed by the United States. Duisburg, a former industrial city on the Ruhr, is the European terminus for China’s Belt and Road initiative, with 70 trains travelling between the city and China every week. (2) Having said that, changes in Germany may make the bloc more susceptible to US pressure to conform to its anti-China, anti-Russia policies. The Greens who are now in government in Germany are hostile to China and Russia.

Although Macron and von der Leyen hope that in 2022 the EU will develop an autonomous army and foreign policy they still have to contend with domestic issues, divisions within the EU and the power of the US to dictate terms in international affairs. Despite this however, they are demonstrating clearly that they want to define and pursue French, German and EU interests independently. Their determination to press ahead with this represents a further stepping up of militarism within the EU and of the threat of war in Europe and beyond.

REFUGEES

There is no EU army as yet, but the first EU militarised force has been established in the shape of Frontex – the European Border and Coastguard Agency. Although initially set up in 2004 it now has significant and increasing funding and has been given new powers to try to stem migration to the EU by refugees. Frontex forces are not only deployed within the EU, but further afield in, for example, Albania and Montenegro, with civilian staff being deployed in Niger, Turkey, Senegal and Serbia.

The hypocrisy of von der Leyen’s condemnation of Belarus, and for some reason Russia, over migration policies is astonishing. Especially since Belarus had no part in the wars which have brought migrants to the EU’s borders while the EU very much did. Belarus is blamed for the EU keeping migrants out.

The EU Pact on Migration and Asylum is notorious for its treatment of asylum seekers and refugees as it pushes them back across the Mediterranean and led to the deaths of over 20,000 people last year. Refugees are warehoused in terrible conditions in camps, with no legal rights and often in third countries like Turkey, which are funded by the EU to do this. Countries in the EU who don’t want to take refugees can pay the EU towards the costs of having them deported instead. (3)

There are increasing demands from countries on the edge of the bloc for funding to erect physical barriers to prevent the entry of refugees. Though this is not yet the policy of the EU it has been praised by EU Home Affairs Commissioner, Ylva Johansson – she described Lithuania’s border fence as a “good idea”. European countries have erected 600 miles of border fencing in the last 30 years, most of it since 2015. Donald Trump would be proud.

The UK Home Secretary, Priti Patel, has put the new Nationality and Borders Bill (aka the Anti-Refugee Bill) before Parliament. It was part of what was dubbed “Operation Red Meat” to take the pressure off Prime Minister Boris Johnson by distracting people from the scandals surrounding him and bringing Tory MPs back on board.  It would severely restrict the rights of refugees and asylum seekers to enter the UK and, like the EU, proposes detaining them in third countries. Patel suggested some possibilities, including Ghana, without even consulting them. It has declined the offer as have others, including Norway and Albania.

The EU, however, has been relatively successful at exporting its control of refugees. The inhumanity of these practices was further exposed in The Economist (15/1/22) collaborating with the Outlaw Ocean Project. The article was entitled, An EU funded horror story. Since 2017 the EU has paid the Libyan coastguard to prevent refugees from making it to Europe, effectively shifting the EU border to the Libyan coast. This has been successful – since then numbers arriving from Libya to Italy have slumped by 44%. However, the impact on refugees has been horrendous. The estimated risk of death for those attempting to cross has risen from 1 in 50 to 1 in 20. The detention camps refugees are being held in in Libya are even worse than those in Europe with tens of thousands enduring squalid conditions, torture and physical and sexual abuse. Detainees may also be forced into slave labour and prostitution. There have been instances of guards shooting people dead, fatal accidents and suicides. Individuals are coerced into requesting payments from their families to secure their release – an average of $500 per person. Despite all this being well-known, the EU continues to fund the scheme.

The “coastguard” is in fact run by local militias as there is little effective government in Libya in the aftermath of its destruction by the west when its military intervention overthrew Colonel Gaddafi. To these dubious recipients the EU has given six fibreglass boats, dozens of four-wheel drive vehicles and hundreds of radios, uniforms and satellite phones worth tens of millions of Euros. Frontex runs arial surveillance, alerting the Italian and Maltese authorities about the movement of refugees, who then pass information on to the militias/coastguard. The EU pays for some basic essentials for refugees detained: a sleeping bag, soap, an ambulance to take them to hospital if needed and, if they don’t survive, a body bag.

In 2018 it asked the International Maritime Agency to create an inappropriately named “search and rescue zone” stretching more than 100km from the Libyan coast thus giving the Libyan militias/coastguard jurisdiction well into international waters. Meanwhile organisations rescuing refugees in the Mediterranean, like Médecins sans Frontières, are often barred from entering ports in the EU. Italy closed its ports to boats with refugees in 2018 when it stopped its own search and rescue missions.

The EU certainly faces many challenges over the coming period – victims of its refugee policy face many more critical to their very survival.

(1) Economic Key Facts Germany - KPMG Germany (home.kpmg)

(2) Special Report Germany, The Economist 25/9/21

(3) Fortress Europe - the EU is killing refugees | The Socialist Correspondent Spring 2021

Olaf Scholz with Angela Merkel photo by Sandro Halank

Refugees in the Mediterranean photo by Mystyslav Chernov/Uniframe

European countries have erected 600 miles of border fencing in the last 30 years...