The summits of multinational organisations, like the EU Council or the G7, are usually stage-managed with final communiqué traditionally agreed in principle by participants well in advance. Donald Trump made sure this no longer remained the case when, after agreeing in principle on the wording of the final communiqué of the last G7 meeting held in Canada, he felt offended by comments made by Justin Trudeau. So Trump tweeted that he was withdrawing his consent to the final post-conference communiqué.
But for real melodrama, hype, theatrics and lack of substance one has to analyse the last EU Council summit held in Brussels in late June. The media had been buzzing for weeks about the importance of this summit. The main item on the agenda, of course, was the problem of migration into the EU that has given rise to populist moments in various countries.
The new Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte knew that nothing but a show of strength at the summit on the need for changes to the Dublin Treaty would satisfy his sponsors the Five Star Movement and the Lega who now lead a strong coalition. Conte made it clear that Italy could no longer tolerate a situation where it was responsible for rescuing the migrants trying to cross over to the EU from Africa while other member states just kept refusing to see this influx as their problem.
Italy’s threat to veto any agreement reached in this summit must have sent shivers down the spines of both Brussels eurocrats and politicians who craft the obtuse wording of the final post-summit communiqué. After a nine-hour session, an agreement was reached. So all political leaders returned to their country to announce that they were instrumental in keeping the EU from imploding. Most quality media, including the Financial Times, expressed cynicism at the muted optimism of those attending the summit. The EU leaders had, in fact, agreed to disagree.
A weak union is better than no union at all
What I find difficult to digest is the sophism of some EU leaders that try to occupy the moral high ground by stating that they are all for accepting political refugees from Africa, but will send back economic refugees.
The reality is that economic refugees in Africa are risking their lives as much as political refugees. With clean water not available in most countries, with diseases like Aids a constant threat to young and old, with unemployment rampant in most African countries, how can one argue that people who try to escape this endemic pestilence are just economic refugees?
The EU has failed to come up with a coherent policy on how to handle the deluge of refugees from Africa, and the Middle and the Far East.
The integration policy of minorities who have been living in Europe for decades has failed. Shrewd extremist parties of the right and the left are exploiting the anger and fear of millions of Europeans who believe that traditional politics can no longer solve their problems.
Admittedly the solution can never be an open-door policy for all those who want to come to Europe because their own countries are either politically or economically unstable.
Populist politicians now risk breaking up the EU and introduce neo-fascist practices that will take Europe to the dark days preceding World War II.
The EU has given Europe seven decades of peace, improved the quality of life of the majority of people through it various cohesion funds programmes, improved the business climate by much-needed regulation, and championed the role of women and young people more than any other political block including America.
Now the EU is facing an existential crisis. The bungled approach to Brexit, the absence of any credible migration policy, the inability to reform the EU governance process and lack of effective strategies to promote significant economic growth are the legacy of the present and previous generation of EU leaders.
To make things even worse, the trade war declared by Trump and the weakening of Nato can only make the prospects of a quick exit from this chaotic scenario more unlikely.
What is keeping the EU together at the moment is the stark reality that a weak union is better than no union at all. But this is a defeatist approach to how EU leaders must plan the future of our young people.
As long as local political interests are given more importance than collective EU broad interests, the Union will continue to falter.
johncassarwhite@yahoo.com