EU

Pitching Europe

 

“The future is yours. Shape it, think loud. I ask you to succeed.” This was the ambitious mission that Valéry Giscard D’Estaing, president and patron of the 1989 Generation Initiative’s Conference on the Redefinition of the European Mission, bestowed on us in his closing remarks.

With the Eurozone malaise still looming over Europe, an unstable neighbourhood both in the East and South and waves of immigration that have spurred nationalistic relapses and plunged Europe into a deep identity crisis, the future of the Union is in jeopardy. Change is necessary! Yet, the European Union often seems exhausted or too politically remote and lacks the political will to reform itself. Fresh impetus is desperately needed – a new vision capable of inspiring and uniting in a fast changing world must be found.

Our generation, the 1989 generation – often decried as disinterested, disunited and disaffected – has to face the long-term effects of these new realities. We are the generation upon which the responsibility of future European leadership rests. Without our ideas, actions and ownership, the European project will decline, then founder. Our generation, the Erasmus-, Easyjet- and Euro-generation, needs to take on the challenge and assume a leading role in re-articulating the mission of the EU.

 

“A strong voice for the 1989 generation”

This is why we have founded the 1989 Generation Initiative. We are a team formed of more than 50 individuals from over 20 European countries and determined to mobilize our generation to give it a face and a stronger voice. We aim to create a pan-European process with the 1989 generation at its centre to envision and build consensus for the future of a united, democratic and inclusive European Union. Through broad engagement, intergenerational dialogue and vision-building, policy ideas can be developed and projects implemented that will add new dynamism to the European project.

To start this process, we have hosted the Conference on the Redefinition of the European Mission, which was attended by 25 renowned senior officials and academics, as well as 45 delegates from the 1989 generation coming from all across Europe. In four roundtables on European economic policy, institutional affairs, foreign policy and identity, we have developed eight specific proposals for policy reform.

 

The development of one uniting message

The United States of Europe are no more than utopia. Yet also the current European system, though noble in its ideals, has hit a wall. Which direction do we want the European integration process to go? What is the Union’s aim for the next 25 years? It seems that heads of governments act in opposition to the fundamental European values such as solidarity, some even against freedom of expression. EU member states are torn when it comes to fundamental questions: how to overcome the structural flaws of our monetary union? When can the basis of the current European public sphere, the Schengen area, be broken? What role should Europe play in the world? Are we to fight for an ever-closer Union, and if so, under which conditions?

These questions will be answered by debating a bold and new vision published in our Manifesto mid this year, and by proposing specific reform proposals which include for instance 1) establishing a single supervisory authority for capital markets as well as a common employment insurance, and 2) develop a new Security Strategy, comprising a Cyber security union, as well as installing a ‘Regional Cooperation Framework’ instead of the current Neighbourhood Policy. In the next month, we will publish these proposals in four separate articles in greater depth on this blog.

 

We are very thankful for Campus Europe and the European Student Think Tank and their great idea to establish this new project: it is time to get our voice heard and reenergize the European public space. We cannot do this alone. We need all of you – pitch in for Europe!

 

You share our enthusiasm for the European Union? You are unhappy with the recent developments that threaten to tear the Union apart? You have your own ideas of how to overcome these problems? In short: you want to contribute to a better European Union? Then sign up for our newsletter and get in touch, follow our blog on Euractiv, engage in our crowd-sourcing campaign, participate in our webinars and discuss with us the future shape of the Union. Have your voice heard! Come on board of the 1989 Generation Initiative and be part of one of the hottest European youth movements on the block!

 

Politics & The World

Rudolf Diesel would be turning in his grave if he read the newspaper articles published in the wake of what (social) media simply termed the #Dieselgate. The manipulation of emission data by Volkswagen run counter to the very core beliefs of the man, whose technology allowed the company to become one of the biggest automobile producers in the world.

Even in Diesel’s native country Germany, only few people have ever heard about his book ‘Solidarismus: Natürliche wirtschaftliche Erlösung des Menschen’ (Solidarism: Natural Economic Salvation of Mankind) published in 1903. Solidarismus, for Diesel, signifies complete congruency of the interest of the individual with the interests of society as a whole. It is fair to assert that this worldview does not allow for the intentional deception of society by single companies.

Now of course Rudolf Diesel never worried about pollution and he most certainly never heard about global warming. In fact, it took us decades to acknowledge the negative effects of pollution on both the environment and human health and it took us even longer to react on it. What the Volkswagen scandal showed is that our current regulatory mechanisms, being in place precisely to curb the effects of pollution, do not work.

The actions of Volkswagen are not justifiable, yet it is worthwhile putting them into perspective. #Dieselgate is not only the failure of individual managers currently portrayed as scapegoats, but it also reveals deficiencies in the underlying regulatory system.

Already before the Volkswagen scandal erupted, the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) found massive deviations when testing for vehicle emissions under more realistic conditions than currently applied in the EU. On average, the tested vehicles reached emission levels seven times higher than allowed. The difference between the emissions measured in laboratory and those under real driving conditions clearly reveals that what we deal with today is a systemic crisis.

The European Commission is expected to initiate new legislation on CO2 standards beyond 2020 by the end of this year. In light of the upcoming UN Climate Conference in Paris, EU policy-makers are keen to further reduce transport emissions to contribute to the achievement of the Union’s overall reduction targets.

The Volkswagen scandal will certainly reinforce this trend towards stricter regulation. However, policy-makers should not be ignorant of market development and technological requirements. When new CO2 standards below 95 g/km will be determined, decision-makers have to bear in mind that car makers cannot meet those standards simply by improving the efficiency of conventional engines.

Due to technological constraints, they will necessarily have to turn to alternative driving systems in order to cope with the regulatory requirements. A reasonable policy, thus, does not only force manufacturers to change their product structures but also supports the industry in bringing about a technological shift.

Although E-mobility only unleashes its full potential if the electricity used to power the car is generated through renewables, there is still common agreement that alternative driving systems such as the electric car represent the future of emission-free driving. But what has been done so far to support the development of E-mobility in Europe?

Today, the European infrastructure for electric cars is both underdeveloped, when compared to the US or Japan, and un-harmonised among Member States. When it comes to re-charging infrastructure and the production of cells and batteries we see US-Japanese leadership.

Already today, European automotive producers partially depend on the supply of batteries from Japan and the US. This dependency will most likely increase in the future as we see no comparable projects planned in Europe today.

Additionally, the charging infrastructure for electric cars varies considerably amongst European countries. While we see a dense network of charging stations in countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark, other countries like Germany struggle considerably in building up a public infrastructure that allows for market development.

One year ago, the EU adopted Directive 2014/94/EU, requiring Member States to build up an ‘appropriate’ number of charging stations for electric cars. The Directive, however, does not impose a binding target, leaving it up to the discretion of Member States to decide on the number of charging points. Clearly, the Directive cannot be conceived as a game changer as it does not incentivise any substantial investment in infrastructure.

Moreover, the EU does not make a deliberate choice for E-mobility. Following the mantra of technology neutrality, the EU requests Member States to develop a charging infrastructure not only for electric vehicles but also for liquid natural gas, compressed natural gas and hydrogen. Thus, Member States are effectively splitting up resources which could be used more efficiently if we made a deliberate choice for E-mobility.

Finally, coming back to the Volkswagen scandal, I believe that there are two essential conditions for a successful handling of the crisis:

  • First, we need a combined effort of industry and politics. Violations of the law have to be punished accordingly, but one should not fall into the trap of blaming and fighting each other like it has been done in the past.
  • Second, both car makers and policy-makers should be ready to embrace alternative driving systems and should not be afraid of taking a risk by investing in better infrastructure. In contrast, by investing in the future today we can turn the crisis into a new start for automotive Europe.

Image by Automobile Italia, taken from flickr

Politics & The World

by Filip Rambousek

On the 30th of October, the EU has gone through with its promise to temporarily lift sanctions against Belarus. More specifically, the EU will for four months raise its travel ban on 170 individuals, as well as its asset freeze of three entities in Belarus.

The promise to raise these sanctions was a carrot dangled in front of Lukashenko before the recent elections. In exchange, Lukashenko had to respond with some degree of liberalisation of his regime.

In concrete terms, the EU demanded slightly more democratic elections, and a release of some political prisoners. Lukashenko made good on both expectations. In August, he released six political prisoners. Before the elections, he allowed the only opposition candidate, Tatsiana Karatkevich, to be interviewed by the main government newspaper. During the elections, the OSCE’s observes were met with fewer obstacles to carry out their work than previously. Overall, the OSCE cited “positive developments” in the Belarusian electoral process.

Still, Lukashenko has not suddenly become a dedicated democrat. The political prisoners, while physically out of jail, remain under close government supervision, with many of their civil liberties curtailed. Despite the improvements, we also cannot speak about democratic elections in Belarus. Belarusian civil society representatives complained about non-transparent vote counting. The OSCE’s head observer agreed, stating that “it is clear that Belarus still has a long way to go towards fulfilling its democratic commitments”.

But why should an authoritarian like Lukashenko, after 21 years in charge, and who even without the rigging of votes has the genuine support of around 60% of Belarusians, bother with pleasing the West? The answer is simple: Europe has changed, and its last dictator with it. In fact, Lukashenko has long lost the right to this moniker. This title has been, yet again, rightfully claimed by the leader of Russia. Putin’s regime, with its domestic repression and foreign aggression, currently represents the biggest threat to the EU, as well as the global order. In reality, he is now one of the “better” dictators in the authoritarian pantheon.

Lukashenko is a shrewd, cold pragmatist, whose only goal is to stay in power. He is very well aware of the threat that the new doctrine of Putinism presents to his position in Belarus. With his invasion of Ukraine, Putin has declared that he has the right to get involved in the internal affairs of any country with a Russian minority. Because of this, Belarus is obviously a prime candidate for the Russian army’s next trip abroad. To Lukashenko, a slight liberalisation of the regime represents a lesser evil, and a lesser threat to his power, than a further deterioration of his relations with the West and total dependency on Russia.

Lukashenko is therefore doing all he can to reinforce Belarusian independence. His concerns were well illustrated in the elections’ propaganda campaign. While in the past, government posters emphasised economic progress and social stability, this year, the billboards boasted Belarusian soldiers, with slogans such as “Standing on the Guard of Belarusian Independence”. More importantly, Lukashenko has recently rejected Russian designs at a new army base in Belarus, retorting, rather prosaically, that Belarus “doesn’t need it”.

This geopolitical shift is also reflected in the sudden thaw in the relations between the EU and Belarus. While the support of the respect of human rights abroad is an important aspect of EU’s foreign policy, Lukashenko has not done enough to deserve this immediate change of European attitude towards his country. Rather Lukashenko has played his cards well, and managed to place himself in a position wherein he is at the same time universally disliked and yet indispensable. According to Radio Free Europe’s Brian Whitmore,

At home, he has turned himself into a bulwark against domination by Moscow. For Moscow, he’s turned himself into a last line of defence against a pro-Western Coloured Revolution in Belarus. For the West, he has made himself useful as a counterweight to Moscow.

This thaw may, therefore, actually be a rare example of pragmatism, strategy, and long-sightedness in the EU’s foreign policy. The removal of sanctions is a concrete concession, designed to bring Putin’s erstwhile vassal closer to the EU’s sphere of influence. For once, it seems, the EU has decided to seize the day.

It has made a good first step, and should continue in this strategy. It should support Lukashenko’s every liberalising step, and offer concrete financial and other rewards in exchange. In this way, Belarus would decrease its dependency on Russia further. At the same time, the EU should keep pushing for increased respect for human rights, and threaten Lukashenko with an immediate and stricter imposition of sanctions, should he backtrack.

This will have the effect of isolating Russia, but it will not change Belarus. It is crucial to keep in mind that in Belarus Lukashenko holds genuine, overwhelming support of the population. If the EU also aims at promoting human rights and democratic principles, therefore, the education of the younger generation of Belarusians is the only way of shifting the country westwards. The EU should support, with financial and political means, the efforts of Belarusian civil society, independent media and NGOs. There are some interesting projects going on such as Dutch-Polish Russian language TV project, which is designed to counter Russian propaganda. This has high potential, since most Belarusians get their information precisely from Russian language TV.

These are long term plans. For now, we should support any country, and any dictator, who has made even a symbolical gesture at a departure from Putin’s inner circle.

Image by United Nations Photo, taken from flickr