During globalization, the world was economic. With the pandemic, it has become political.
Political preferences now condition economic choices. The opposite was true during the rise of globalization until the pandemic.
Europe must adapt to this new framework and no longer think that economic power alone is sufficient. This is its major challenge.
The signing of the trade agreement between the EU and the United States was based solely on economic considerations on the European side, with the argument that it was impossible to get better. For Trump, the negotiation had an explicit political aim to constrain the European Union.
The purchases of LNG (750 billion over 3 years), the investment of 600 billion are all political constraints to limit the capacity of Europeans to be autonomous.
In the discussion on Ukraine, Europe is ignored by Trump and Putin.
Europe must exist politically, otherwise its mainly economic choices will not count in this new world.
The four major essential options for Europe to shape its future are the capacity to innovate following Mario Draghi’s words, the integration of the European market following the Letta report, the integration of financial markets (Saving and Investment Union) and climate change.
Their implementation will determine its ability to generate revenue and its social coherence. This is the necessary package, but not sufficient to ensure its sovereignty and respect for the choices that will be made in Brussels and in European capitals.
Europe was created on economic grounds because political agreement was impossible in the early 1950s, just a few years after the Second World War.
The Treaty of Rome and the resulting common market were ultimately intended to generate a common political dynamic. Europe has deepened all economic dimensions, even if it has not gone all the way, as the Letta report pointed out. However, it has never acquired the political dimension that one might have hoped for from such a large and wealthy region.
The world has changed and is now dominated by autocratic regimes. China, Russia, India, Turkey, and now the United States have opted for harsh and violent political systems.
For the rest of the world, the choices appear limited. This is where Europe could have a card to play. Europe cannot fit into the framework of large autocratic states; that is neither its culture nor its philosophy.
It must, however, make political choices to make itself heard and assume a strong role vis-à-vis the rest of the world. These choices are also necessary internally to maintain the unity of the EU and avoid political fragmentation. Otherwise, it risks becoming nothing more than a market open to the world without being able to influence the decisions taken.