LEADING FIGURES – Hon. Minister of Europe

Mr. Minister, we can’t help but start with the mother of all crises on the table at present: migration. Six years ago, you were already issuing warnings that migration was to be a major challenge for Europe. Today, several European countries seem to believe that the solution to the huge influx of migrants lies in dismantling the Schengen area or erecting internal walls. Europe might soon have more fences and walls than it had during the Cold War. But, as in the past, walls do not deter people from moving, nor have they ever provided a solution. Assuming that there are urgent emergency actions and structural measures that need to be adopted, what comprehensive strategy should the EU embrace in order to efficiently address the many challenges the migrant crisis currently poses?

As long as we live in a globalized world, migration will always be with us. We should accept this fact and try to define policies that can provide a more rational way of tackling the problems it engenders.

Concerning today’s crisis, I would like to make two points. First, this is a crisis of refugees. International legislation – and more specifically the [1951 United Nations] Refugee Convention – stipulates that we are obliged to accept and protect those fleeing from persecution and seeking shelter in other countries. It would be an unforgivable contradiction not to comply with this obligation while simultaneously claiming to stand by our values. Having said that, and we now come to my second point, we have wrongly assumed that a crisis of this nature is a problem the European Union can solve on its own, a fact that makes it even harder to find a solution. All members of the international community must bear responsibility for this crisis. Former UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres has been strongly insistent on this point. In my discussions with him, he added that a much more coordinated effort could have been organised in order to share responsibility outside the EU.

The EU countries should work in close cooperation with UNHCR. No country should opt out of the obligations it has – not only because we are EU members but also because we are signatories of the UN Refugee Convention. It is critical to seek an optimal design in order to share the burden of the migratory pressure, and this design should be based on the principle of solidarity. Not accepting refugees, in any case, is not an option.

A new Marshall Plan for the countries where the refugees come from and better integration in our cities: do we have enough resources for this? Shouldn’t we be looking at a bond project targeted at migration management?

A Marshall plan would be necessary, but I am afraid it is not an option as we do not have enough resources. It is essential to look beyond Europe and include the Arab world and of course the United Nations. Migrations are by no means an exclusively European problem; it is definitely a global issue. That’s why it is even more astonishing that whenever a country faces a problem of global dimensions, such as the refugee crisis, it has become a custom to retreat into one’s national cocoon. The countries that are currently seeking to renationalise migration policies out of fear should be reminded that the influx of desperate people seeking shelter in Europe will continue in the future, regardless of whether the European Union is united or not. Rejecting the EU will not protect the countries erecting walls from suffering the unfathomable repercussions of the migrant crisis. On the contrary, it will leave them far more vulnerable. This brings us back to the fact that a common approach will always be better than any unilateral action. Sooner or later this will become apparent even to the most nationalist politicians. The problem is that in the meantime the damage could be significant. This is why I keep saying that promoting European integration should not be limited to a simple statement of the benefits of EU membership. Instead, the EU should rely on the fact that it is a very profound political project. That’s where its power of attraction lies.

As the latest European Commission review pointed out, member states still do not provide sufficient personnel to Frontex, our common border agency. Frontline states such as Italy and Greece largely have to cope on their own. Out of 750 personnel requested last January, EU member states have pledged around 400. A proper European border agency (not Frontex, that is only a coordinating body) can’t of course solve the migrant crisis, but it may help to manage the emergency. How long do you think it will take for the EU to equip itself with a more functional border agency, which wouldn’t just provide coordination but could also act as a joint border police?

A common asylum policy is a must for the EU and so is a European agency for border management. These two things are not impossible to attain, and the debate on this matter should revolve around two main tenets: solidarity and realism. However, coming up with a timetable is no simple matter. The EU has deployed missions (both civil and military) in many areas of the world. So it should not be impossible to create an agency capable of providing external border control, providing we collaborate with our neighbouring countries to manage the refugee influx and keep other forms of migration under control.

The migrant crisis has shown the urgent need for a peaceful solution in Syria. Yet five long years have passed by and the war – which has caused more than 250,000 casualties, 6.5 million internally displaced and 4.8 million refugees – is still on. Given that Russia’s economy is in trouble and that Iran’s desire to revive old trade ties with Europe is very strong, isn’t it about time that Europe engage more convincingly with other actors involved in the conflict and play a greater role in bringing peace to Syria? The longer we procrastinate, the greater the likelihood of new terrorist attacks on our cities.

The problems with this wave of migration are the numbers involved (vast) and the time frame (very short). However, this situation has come about owing to a terrible war close to our borders. If we had put more effort into stopping this war, there would be fewer refugees. The EU’s influence in this nearby conflict has fallen short. Indeed, I would have expected the EU’s commitment in the peace process to be stronger than it is at present. If the tragedy of the Syrian war was not sufficient, the reasons to engage are now multiplying and we are now getting to witness the consequences of the Syrians’ flight from conflict and persecution up close. We played an important role in Iran, but we have failed in Syria. There can be no doubt: it is vital that we intensify our commitment to solving the Syrian conflict. 

Javier, last year you chaired a CEPS [Centre for European Policy Studies] Task Force on Security and Defence, which issued a report suggesting that “the Common Security and Defence Policy is the weakest link in the European integration project”. In the light of the multiple threats and challenges confronting the EU today, ranging from terrorist attacks to the heart of Europe and wars on our doorstep, why are we still so far away from a truly ‘European Union of Defence’?

We definitely should take CSFP [Common Security and Foreign Policy] more seriously and plan forwardthinking strategies to address 21st century problems. The terrible events that occurred in France have clearly shown that there is a continuum between internal and external security. Therefore, we have to consider all of the assets held by each country (e.g. intelligence, police force, humanitarian aid, etc.) to be used for both internal and external security. I would like to see European defence developed based on this understanding – and it should start soon. It is time for EU countries to take a braver approach in their attempts to achieve a more efficient and effective framework for defence cooperation. The cost of European inaction in defence could rise if the security framework deteriorates. Beyond the economic consequences of a non-European defence system, political and strategic reasons urge the EU to increase defence cooperation while collaborating wholeheartedly with NATO. Possible efforts in this direction would include the creation of a permanent structure to facilitate joint political and military decision-making, as well as a pooling and sharing of capabilities; the simplification of financing procedures to allow faster deployment of EU operations; and the stimulation of investment in innovative research programmes to enable a more competitive defence and technology industry. The publication of the “Global Strategy” provides an opportunity to take a closer look at these issues. I am certain this document will be comprehensive enough not only to support deep analysis but also to provide recipes to make the analysis truly constructive. The existing European security strategy, which you were responsible for, was approved 12 years ago, reflecting challenges posed by a completely different world. High Representative Federica Mogherini is about to release a new security strategy for the European Union taking into consideration that now the situation couldn’t be more different. The deteriorating security among European neighbours, the financial crisis and the structural shifts in global geopolitics are major developments. In light of your experience, what priorities would you underline for High Representative Mogherini?

Russia’s annexation of Crimea, the conflict in Syria of which the impact is extending far beyond the country’s borders, Libya’s uncertain future, extremism close at hand and radicalisation at home have delivered a blow to the post-Cold War security order. No other global player is facing so many multiple challenges. Nevertheless, security and defence are the weakest links in the European integration project. A primary task would be to provide the EU with the toolbox it needs to defend its interests, which are more easily served in a more stable world, in which multilateral institutions are in charge of dealing with the risks of multipolarity. In addition, we need to increase our level of action in the security realm, an area where there is a significant consensus among European citizens. In other words, security must be better integrated, along with the connected industrial development, which should have a more European bias in order to be more competitive on the global market. In these days, Italy, Spain, France and Germany have addressed a letter to Mogherini, asking for a greater focus on security issues. This means security is certainly on the table, despite everyone in recent weeks focusing on the outcome of the British referendum.

On June 23 British citizens finally decided to stay in the EU. How will the relationship with UK shape up from now on, at a time when the founding members of the EU start to seriously consider moving on towards a federal union? After a turbulent 40-year relationship with the UK as members, shouldn’t we have let our British friends follow their separatist and nostalgic instincts?

Yes, it actually might have been wise to ask oneself whether retaining a member that is challenging the very principle of European integration is really in the EU’s best interests. I do acknowledge that the UK is a very unique member of the EU, and despite its distinctive features, it has remained within the European fold for many years. In the end, British voters shunned from the idea of breaking with the rest of EU. The decision to stay was the right one. I am convinced that having the UK as an EU member is the best for all concerned. Separation would have been a leap into a dangerous unknown. Brexit would have certainly dealt a major blow to the UK economy. But that is not all, even Britain’s political influence would have been curtailed. For Europe, in the face of the migration crisis and conflicts on Europe’s borders, a Brexit would have been problematic for the European security and foreign policy framework, undermining NATO just when we need to stand together. What’s more, Brexit could have bolstered Europe’s nationalist and Eurosceptic movements and, with a presidential election looming in France and federal elections in Germany next year, the potential political boost to anti-European forces could have had serious long-term consequences. Nevertheless, it is clear that, even with the stay option winning out in the referendum, working with the UK within EU institutions will be much more complex. The British public debate on sovereignty will not end any time soon so that’s why we have to work even more convincingly on improving the European integration process and make it more attractive to European citizens.

I would like to ask Angela Merkel not to run in the next political elections in Germany and stand instead to be the next European Commission president. What do you think? To my mind it would seem the best way of guaranteeing a decisive acceleration towards a federal union over the next decade, with a mutualized economy and essential competences given over by national states to Brussels.

A federal union is a dream and sometimes dreams can come true. Of course, we will have to move ahead with a two-speed Europe, that’s for sure! That’s why leadership is so crucial. Already after the summer, decisive steps should be taken and I have the impression that there are countries already working on that. Difficult electoral tests are coming up (the US this year, France next, Germany and Russia in 2018) but it is our duty to keep working towards greater integration, primarily to ensure that future generations can rely on the kind of institutional framework that can confront the global challenges that stand before us.