A 'sovereign European Union' is not a good idea
In an insightful interview for Jacobin magazine, Ines Schwerdtner, newly elected co-chair of Germany’s left-wing party Die Linke, says this about European policy orientations (the parenthetic explanation is mine):
So, I think that this snap-election campaign [in Germany following the collapse of the ruling coalition], which will be short and hard-fought, will be all about defending Europe, defending Germany, and security policy, discussed in military terms. That’s frightening. When the political center invokes a “sovereign Europe,” they only mean it in Emmanuel Macron’s sense of building up a European army. This summer, during the EU election campaign, we said, yes, we need a sovereign Europe and European Union, but in a sense of social and economic policies, in the sense of not being dependent on either the United States or China.
I agree with the sentiment of focusing on socio-economic matters, but think the notion of sovereignty is intrinsically linked to military might. This is not a matter of ideology but a consequence of sovereignist governance. If a polity wants to be sovereign, else independent, on, say, the economic front, it has to impose protectionist policies. This means that trade partners on the receiving end will be forced to find new markets for their exports and, generally, devise ways to cope with the economic headwinds. Among such reactions will be their closer collaboration with states that antagonise the country that implemented the protectionist policies. In the case of the EU versus China, for example, China is incentivised to collaborate with Russia and Iran, among others. Those international actors will seek ever closer ties which will inevitably include military affairs as there will be a global race for the control of valuable resources. What then starts out as seemingly innocuous economic protectionism in the name of “the people” will have to transmogrify into a more aggressive mode of governance that involves assertive foreign policy, with the necessary side-effect of reinforcing the domestic industrial-military-financial complex.
We need not look far back in our history to understand how trade, with the interdependence it establishes, is a powerful guarantee for peace. The history of the European integration process is, in essence, the history of dismantling trade barriers between the member states of the European Communities (European Coal and Steel Community, European Economic Community, European Union). There has not been war or the chance of one between member states, despite the long history of conflict on the continent. For example, Germany and France were enemies in two World Wars, as well as similarly disstrous conflicts in previous centuries, but now the Franco-German tandem is an integral part of European politics. The idea of European integration, despite flaws in specific implementation details, is wonderful because it understands the link between economic liberty and peace and, conversely, the connection between economic hostility and warfare.
Countries with close economic ties are less likely to go to war with each other because of the immediate consequences of the ensuing economic downfall. Trade will collapse overnight and with it there will be cascading effects that harm the livelihood of civilians, notwithstanding the horrors of war. A government that declares war on a close trade partner is thus consigning its citizens to radical uncertainty and impoverishment. By contrast, the sovereignist outlook potentially benefits from conflict because it is already operating along the lines of a zero-sum game where the winner takes the spoils and the loser suffers permanent losses.
The Left’s commitment to internationalism was an expression of this notion that collaboration brings peace while sovereignism begets conflict. We understand this dynamic in interpersonal affairs as well. People who are exposed to groups outside of their own, and who are made to rely on others, are more likely to be tolerant towards them, while those who live in their little bubble express intolerance towards anyone alien to them (and this can happen even in the name of cultural progress, where self-styled “social justice warriors” will say how bad are the men, the white people, or whichever bugaboo is in vogue).
Instead of the age-old “beggar thy neighbour” mistakes that plunged Europe in perpetual conflict, we need to review our history, recent and ancient, and think in terms of the general good. We have to recognise that we are not alone in this world, be it as countries or individuals. We give something and get something back. In the process, we have peace through openness and get the chance to broaden our horizons.
Seeing though how virtually everybody in Europe is obsessing about their own flavour of sovereignty, I am afraid that we will continue to go down the path of paranoia that only sees enemies beyond our borders. We already hear strong voices in the public opinion that are, for example, outright Sinophobic. I expect this to remain the norm exactly because Europe’s foreign policy outlook vis-à-vis much of the world is increasingly hostile (same for the Americans, by the way).
Finally, there is another point of concern for people on the broader political left. If you are peddling what effectively is sovereignism lite, then why would voters opt for you en masse when they can instead go for the real deal in the form of the far-right?