DW: “Is it time for a more Gaullist Europe?” This is the title of your text. It is difficult to imagine a more Gaullist idea than the strategic autonomy of Europe from the USA.
Jim Cloos*: – General de Gaulle did not want the United States to dictate everything to Europe. And he was right. But he sided with the US in a difficult situation. By “strategic autonomy” I do not mean autarky and protectionism, but the ability to act and greater resilience. When I write about a more “Gaullist” Europe, I mean not a Gaullist leader, but rather a Gaullist spirit.
The recommendations of TEPSA experts for the Polish presidency of the EU have a common denominator: making Europe strategically independent. Time has shown that de Gaulle was right?
– The comfortable situation after World War II, when Europe's geopolitical security was ensured by the alliance with Washington, is changing. Europe must adapt to the enormous set of challenges of our times. And look at relations with the US differently.
Will Trump not side with Europe in a difficult situation?
– That's your assessment. We just don't know what he'll do. In my opinion, EU-US relations are important, but it is the US that questions them more than us. Whatever happens, we must do more for our defense. De Gaulle would agree with this.
Do you believe that Europe, looking for its place in the global game of thrones, will be able to play like an orchestra when many players want to play the first violin and some are false?
– One of the stupidest statements you can hear in… Brusselsis “Europe must speak with one voice.” Absolute nonsense. It will always be the voice of the heads of the EU institutions and the 27 heads of state and government. In a democracy, there is never unity at the beginning of the discussion. It's good that you used the term “orchestra”: democracy is about creating – out of diversity – unity in action. And we are really doing well at EU level to get the voices of the 27 leaders singing in unison.
Really?
– In the years 2006-2020, I participated in every meeting of the European Council. In front of everyone the media write: “Europe is divided.” They're right. But then they write: “there is a crisis.” No, there isn't. The 27 leaders do not come to Brussels to say: “we love each other and everything is OK”, but to fight – and work out a way forward.
On January 1, 2025, the rotating presidency of the Council will pass from Hungary, which arguably has the most Eurosceptic and pro-Russian government in the EU, to pro-European and anti-Russian Poland. The conflict between Ursula von der Leyen and Charles Michel will also end – the new chairman of the Council, Antonio Costa, will soon start work. This could quickly change EU policy.
– There are more fundamental forces – the crisis of liberal democracy, the rise of extreme attitudes, the lack of dialogue – than the skirmishes of von der Leyen and Michel. But I count on the teamwork of Costa, von der Leyen and the head of the EU Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kaia Kallas. Regarding the rotating presidency: especially after the Lisbon Treaty, it does not set the agenda, it is the Council and its President who do it. But personalities and countries matter. When Viktor Orban went on a “peace tour”, he abused the presidency to some extent, because it does not represent the Union abroad. However, after the elections, Poland returned to Europe.
We'll see for how long.
– She's back for now. And Donald Tusk is in an ideal position for the presidency to really play a role in the European Council. He was the chairman of the Council himself, he has experience and moral authority. He is already an important player in Europe, and now he will speak on behalf of the Presidency. He also assembled a good team – with Budget Commissioner Piotr Serafin and Poland's new permanent representative to the EU, Agnieszka Bartol. Additionally, Poland has great credibility because it is an example of economic success and its defense budget is close to 5% of GDP.
The challenges are also enormous.
– Indeed. Defense, competitiveness, migration – this problem will be present for the next fifty years – and climate change, the evolution of democracy, the German elections, the French mess. The Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci wrote about the pessimism of the intellect and the optimism of the will. I look at challenges with the pessimism of intellect. But I try to be guided by the optimism of the will to deal with them.
In your text about Gaullist Europe, you also wrote that Europe needs a new way of thinking. Like: “Yes, we can be a global player.”
– If we don't change our way of thinking, we will lose. Mario Draghi's report says, for example, that we need more entrepreneurship, courage, risk-taking, but Draghi did not consult anyone in Central and Eastern Europe. He should have looked at what Poland was doing in terms of entrepreneurship. Perhaps Western Europe could learn from Poland. It is not that we are unable to repair the economic or political situation anywhere.
Speaking of changing your thinking. Do you think that at least one country should join the EU this term?
– NO. Many societies and people want to join the EU. The question is whether they are ready and whether we are. We cannot specify dates because it all depends on these two factors.
In your opinion, the EU does not have to prove that it is still attractive to the candidate countries?
– For the first time, in the case of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, the EU has made a revolutionary, because geopolitical, decision regarding enlargement. But enlargement is not only a geopolitical challenge. We need to do it well, both in terms of the absorption capacity of the EU itself and of reforms in the candidate countries.
If it works, that's the mindset change you're looking for.
– Before a given country joins the EU, we must be sure that it will survive in the EU environment. This will be difficult for Ukraine and the Western Balkan countries. We promised them that we would try to make it happen, now we have to help them or we will lose pro-European societies. But I am against promises of specific accession dates.
Why?
– Accession has always depended on the progress of the candidate country. But let's also remember about the regional point of view. When I was head of cabinet at the Jacques Santer Commission in the 1990s, we proposed that countries that were already ready should join the EU. But the Germans said that without Poland they would not agree to the accession of others. What if the EU admits, for example, Montenegro, and someone asks: what about Serbia?
So what are your recommendations for the presidency? The Polish authorities are part of the EU's ruling majority. In five years they want to say: “we've got it, don't vote for the far right.”
– Build on the work of predecessors. Increase the EU's competitiveness. Invest in defense – Poles are already doing it. Stick to the goals of the Green Deal, but without the bureaucracy. Look at the Council's agenda and the Commission's proposals. And prepare the ground for successors. Because if someone thinks that they will change the world in six months – it is impossible.
*Jim Cloos is the secretary general of the Trans European Policy Studies Association (TEPSA). He played a role in the preparation of the Maastricht Treaty during the Luxembourg Presidency of the Council of the European Union in 1991. He worked in the European Commission, first as head of the cabinet of the Commissioner for Agriculture, and then as head of the cabinet of the President of the European Commission and his “sherpa” for G7/G8. He also worked as Deputy Director General for General and Institutional Policy at the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union. For many years he played a key role in preparing European Council meetings.
The article comes from the website Deutsche Welle