Martin Schulz: a wake-up call for EU security and energy policies

Photo: Heiki Rebane / BNS

More than 20 years ago political scientist Francis Fukuyama famously wrote that the end of the Cold War marked "the end of history". His formulation meant that the triumph of Western democracy and liberal capitalism was moving the world toward an epoch of peace and a rule-based international order. Known for soft rather than hard power, the European Union seemed suited for such an era. After all, the EU was created exactly to overcome the old-style power politics that led to two disastrous wars in the last century.

But Russia's ambivalent actions and statements on Ukraine showed that old-fashioned geopolitics has not gone away. Under its current leadership, Moscow continues to do what any "big powers" has always been trying to do, namely increase its sphere of influence. The EU must adapt to this environment to be able to better and faster respond to threatening or outright hostile moves from anywhere outside of its borders. The EU will not become another NATO. There is no will nor need for that. But it can and should increase its efforts in the so-called third pillar, the common security and foreign policy. We have seen lately that when the EU speaks with one voice, it can play a decisive role in conflicts resolution, of which I will speak more later. The EU should also create a genuine single market in energy.  Such reforms would be welcome not only for the Baltic republics, which are understandably anxious about Russia's future intentions after it illegally incorporated Crimea and is in the eyes of many not exactly doing its utmost to stabilise eastern Ukraine.

But before I elaborate, let me start with something quite obvious. Here and there, you can hear scaremongering comments that Russia is trying to rebuild its empire, now dealing with Ukraine, then time will come for some other countries and the Baltic republics will be next. Well, I do not think that is the case and not only because Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania belong to the EU and NATO, providing a rock solid security guarantee, which no country will dare to challenge. It goes without saying that NATO and the EU will firmly stand behind any of its member in the face of hostilities, attempts at destabilisation or political blackmail.

But security of its member state should not be enough for the EU. We should be able to shape the international order and push events in a desirable direction, act and not react. The EU has made much progress since the times when it was called "an economic giant, but a political dwarf." The Lisbon treaty created the post of the EU's foreign policy supremo, now Catherine Ashton, who has had some remarkable successes such as brokering a historic agreement between Kosovo and Serbia or securing a deal with Iran on its nuclear programme. The EU has also not been idle in the defence area, having sent several peacekeeping and police missions abroad or created battle-groups, each of which is comprised of troops from several EU countries. But those EU forces are still difficult to mobilise, cannot be readily deployed and are overtly reliant on national goodwill and capabilities. The EU defence industry remains fragmented. Putting together a peacekeeping mission is a slow process. And, most crucially, the EU hardly speaks in one voice on security and foreign policy. The EU's lack of eagerness to play a central role on the international stage was exacerbated by the sovereign debt crisis in the euro zone, which has made the EU more inward-looking.

Recent developments in the Ukraine, a country that has shared borders with several EU member States, should be a wake-up call for the EU to reinforce its security and foreign policy. When the EU represents a single front, like in trade or competition policy, it is on par with the United States or China. But it is not the case in foreign affairs. Narrow national interests should therefore give the way to interests of the EU as a whole. Everybody will benefit from that in the long run. The EU's high representative for foreign affairs and security policy should not be undermined by national diplomacies. The EU's foreign policy should be strictly coordinated with its actions in the area of trade, energy and development aid. We must strive for a single representation in some international bodies, or barring that, a united strategy and voting behaviour.

On defence, the EU should start with building on conclusions of its summit in December, 2013, when EU leaders called for the development of "a credible and effective Common Security and Defence Policy." That would involve deepening defence cooperation by making it more coherent and improving the capacity to conduct missions and operations. The summit rightly concluded that the battle-groups should be more flexible and deployable. Synergies and economies of scale should be taken advantage of in the defence industry, including in the crucial research and development area.

I do understand calls from some Baltic politicians and experts for increased vigilance and warning capabilities in NATO border countries. It is fully justified and reasonable from their point of view, from their historic experience and the present feeling of instability caused by some threatening and triumphalist statements heard from across the order.

However, I urge caution against advocating stationing massive contingents of troops at the EU borders to build up a "threat scenario" and thus contribute to unnecessary shows of strength, muscle-flexing or tit for tat exchanges of any kind. It is not naive or short-sighted to give more space and absolute priority to the voices of reason, to de-escalate, to dialogue, to concentrate on our common interests and cooperation wherever and as long as we can.  

The discussion about possible economic sanctions, their effectiveness and credibility but also their effect on our own economies has again made us realise how helplessly dependent we are in some EU countries on Russian energy imports. It is a scandal that 40 years after the oil shock, we still have not made ourselves more independent in the energy area.

We should therefore urgently complete the European Energy Community. The single energy market would protect the EU itself from dependence on Russian supplies of gas and oil while boosting economic growth and create jobs. Energy is the Achilles' heel for our competitiveness and security. We are vulnerable to shocks, we can be threatened by our partners and our industry loses out to its competitors. On average our firms pay twice as much as their American rivals.

First, we need to urgently complete connections among the national gas and electricity systems. We need a European super-grid. There must be no more lonely energy islands in the EU. Secondly, we need to speak with one voice to our energy suppliers. We could start with the participation of the European Commission in national negotiations on energy imports. In the future, we need a European agency buying energy on behalf of member states could be an option. Thirdly, we should diversify our energy imports. We should build more terminals for imports of liquefied gas and look to Asian and African countries for gas and oil imports. Finally, the development of renewable energy without conflicting long-term targets is absolutely crucial.

All crises are first of all challenges, but they also provide opportunities. Do not let us waste the current one.