Crossroads: can Europe become a moral power?

There is a growing authoritarianism in the world and Europe needs to work out if it has the will and capacity to fight back. In other words, it needs to decide if it will act as a 'moral power': a global power which acts not only on the basis of self-interest but also in defence of the universal values of freedom and democracy.

Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union says that the 'Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights'. These values are an integral part of Europe's laws. To this extent, it is self-evident that they must be defended inside Europe. But outside of Europe they must be defended too. Europe is not a walled garden, it does not have the American advantage of being flanked by vast oceans. War, chaos and instability can easily reach our shores and the new wave of anti-democratic power can too. Our garden cannot flourish if the rivers which feed it are poisoned. 

And there is no doubt the poison is spreading. Of course we know the authoritarian superpower, China, is becoming increasingly assertive in its neighbourhood, clashing with India, threatening Taiwan and crushing Hong Kong's liberties. But the danger can also be found much closer to home, next to and inside of Europe itself. In Russia, Belarus, Turkey, Poland and Hungary we find the democracies being turned into dictatorships and dictatorships becoming ever more aggressive, towards both their neighbours and their own people.

Faced with this growing challenge to its fundamental values, does Europe have an anti-authoritarian policy? Arguably there are elements of a coherent policy but not much more than that. At every turn there are two major tensions. First, between opposing views of engagement and confrontation with authoritarian powers. Europe is often wary of engaging in direct confrontation for fear of the situation getting out of hand and causing significant harm to Europe itself. Some states also believe, for reasons of capacity, ideology or both, that they would be unable to sustain a military conflict in most cases. Second, there is the tension between European and national action. In the end, Europe is a collection of sovereign states and so each has the right to pursue its own independent foreign policy in nearly all areas. Indeed, states will defend this right in the strongest terms. But, in practice, taking decisions unilaterally can seriously rub partners up the wrong way. It has been evident with Germany's approval of Nord Stream 2 and it is obvious again with France sending its navy into the Eastern Mediterranean to support Greece and Cyprus. Everyone wants European consultation and discussion when it's the policies of others but unrestrained national sovereignty when it's their own decisions at stake. And when everyone plays along and tries to form a European approach? Well good luck getting everyone to actually agree in a system which requires unanimity. In Europe foreign policy is trapped in the painful paradox of being too important to move to majority voting but also too important to just let everyone do their own thing. 

Some of these tensions could be resolved if European countries came together on an overarching strategy, a guide to inform the day-by-day policy decisions. But the reality is that this kind of strategy does not exist. And this is not only a European problem, most Western states today do not have a foreign policy strategy that can inform decision-making across a range of government departments.

We are relatively comfortable with the idea that policies coming out of national treasuries can shape the direction and limits of other departments - control of funding is a naturally powerful tool - but this is a system that was particularly well adapted for the post-Soviet 90s and 00s. Now, in an area of great power competition and the faltering foundations of international institutions, foreign ministries need to step up into a similar role. In digital, media, trade, defence, justice, energy, climate and aid departments there needs to be a direction coming from the foreign ministry, a common line which all policies need to fit into and drive towards. 

In an ideal world, Europe's governments could take 6 months out to formulate this strategy. Naturally, we don't have that time. Instead this strategy must be made in real-time and in response to the two most pressing crises: Turkey and Belarus.

So what has been working and what hasn't? On the plus side, in both cases, the relevant countries who have the most expertise in these regions have been able to take the lead on forming the policy response: Greece, Cyprus and France notably for Turkey and Lithuania and Poland for Belarus. The European response has also been relatively decisive, bringing real military force to counter the operations of the Turkish navy and preparing carefully targetted sanctions to use against officials in Belarus.

But there have also been weaknesses. Germany has been vocally unhappy with France's unilateral decision to deploy force, just as Berlin tries to calm the situation. And an official statement following the meeting of EU Foreign Ministers was blocked after Berlin wouldn't back stronger language on Turkey, leading Greece to veto the declaration on Belarus. And at a structural level, a blockade by internal saboteurs (like Hungary) remains a real risk in all European foreign policy. 

So how can Europe learn from these and develop a broader anti-authoritarian strategy? Here are some of the ideas:

• Credible deterrence works. Avoiding conflict is good but authoritarian powers need to take the EU's words seriously. If there's nothing to back up the statements then they will be ignored.
• There are a number of policy options available before military action, including punishing authoritarian elites through targeted sanctions. These could be made stronger by looking more closely at the flow of money at home in Europe.
• But there is a clear anxiety about using military force, does Europe have an answer if sanctions don't work? More frank conversations are needed here.
• Europe's diversity gives it access to a wide range of expertise, it should always make use of this and countries need to recognise each other's strengths. 
• At some point Europe will need to break with unanimity in foreign affairs. It's not a case of whether it happens but of how to prepare for it. In the meantime, countries should at least give each other in the loop, even if it doesn't mean submitting their policies to a group vote.
• Europe needs consistency. Its policy responses are only weakened by the confused approach towards different authoritarian regimes, going for confrontation or diplomatic engagement on a largely arbitrary basis. It may need a compromise or some sort of framework but a common understanding would help ensure that, no matter what the threat may be at any given point, European countries are thinking around similar policy responses from the get-go. They may not be on the same page but it should at least be the same chapter. 

Hopefully, this common strategic stance towards authoritarian regimes will then give the EU the political consensus necessary to tackle the growing anti-democratic systems inside its own borders. 

Once these points have been achieved, then Europe will be some way along the road to being able to confront the major authoritarian powers: Russia and China. Reaching this point will be necessary in order to reverse the trend of rising authoritarianism and to bring new energy to liberal democracy and internationalism. Even if it doesn't mean collapsing either of these regimes, it could force them to adapt to a world defined by Europe's values rather than the other way round. 

Achieving this will mean applying the same lessons learned from dealing with smaller authoritarian powers but reinforcing and growing the policy toolbox - notably more unified military action and a more decisive response to violations of international law and the EU's own values.

None of this is easy but if Europe could tick these boxes, it could become the 21st century's leading moral power.

Image via Flickr