https://arab.news/cbd44
The world really does function in cycles. I recall that, more than 10 years ago, I often used the EU and its construction as a model or case study for the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Today, I find myself doing the opposite increasingly often.
In the current context, I see that Europe is diverting from its core goals and mission. I am worried that its obsession with Russia will hinder its expansion or even its growth as a single market. Now, the reason why I mention the comparison with the GCC is that, for many years — too many — the GCC was focused on a real and dangerous enemy: the Iranian regime. This focus on the enemy made the GCC and Arabs as a whole focus on standing “against” instead of standing “for.” This changed more than a decade ago and today we see the difference.
Indeed, the GCC has shifted to focus on its people’s well-being. The people are its citizens as well as the immigrants living and working there. There has been a real paradigm shift: while acknowledging and keeping an eye on the Iranian regime’s interference, the real focus has been on prosperity.
The GCC member states are no longer focused on playing geopolitical games that never end, but on developing and building their respective countries. This shift, which is proving successful, has allowed for an upscaling of infrastructure and created a better standard of living for the people. Moreover, it has allowed for stronger understanding and unity among the GCC countries.
I am worried that every strategic European decision is being influenced by whatever Moscow does or thinks
Khaled Abou Zahr
Now, the EU is repeating what the GCC states did in the past. It is obsessed with Russia and sees Moscow’s hand in everything bad that happens. While deterrence and security have always been part of the EU or any bloc’s construction, it was always guided by something more, like higher values, especially when it came to its construction and expansion. It is like the more you try to avoid the tree on the road, the more likely you are to hit it.
I am worried that every strategic European decision is being influenced by whatever Moscow does or thinks. There is a big difference between the EU’s positioning against the Soviet Union and its positioning today against Moscow. Being ready and prepared for any risk was only part of its positioning during the Cold War; the bigger picture was building a prosperous bloc and avoiding wars between its members, while offering equal opportunities to all.
There was a clear positive example of what Europe stood for when Spain joined the European Communities in 1986. This move came a decade after the end of Franco’s dictatorship and the adoption of a democratic system. The same can be said of Greece, which became a member in 1981 after the end of its junta period. For both countries, joining the bloc helped stabilize their political systems and modernize their economies.
This was achieved through greater integration with Western Europe. The economic results and upscaling of infrastructure were clear for both countries. After joining the bloc, trade increased, as did foreign investments, which in turn helped consolidate the political institutions. It was Brussels’ structural funds, aligned with regional development and social programs, that enhanced the lives of all. This expansion was natural and for the benefit of Europeans, not focused on an enemy.
The construction of the EU is now being led by tactics, not a long-term strategy or a focus on achieving real goals
Khaled Abou Zahr
But things have changed. The construction of the EU is now being led by tactics, not a long-term strategy or a focus on achieving real goals. We can clearly see how Moscow is even guiding the EU’s relations with Turkiye. This is demeaning both for Brussels and Ankara.
Moreover, one should ask whether the discussions about Ukraine’s candidacy are being pushed for the right reasons or only as a part of a tit-for-tat with Moscow. Beyond Budapest’s opposition due to its concerns over the treatment of ethnic Hungarians in Ukraine, there is more that should be questioned. But this should not be discussed while the war is still ongoing. The same applies to other countries that may be offered accession as a message to Russia.
We cannot avoid stating that Brexit and the weakening of Paris and Berlin have shaken the pillars of the EU. Moreover, overregulation and the imposition of policies — such as immigration policies — that no longer seek to unite but to erase national identities in favor of a European one are, in my view, the same core issue. The overcentralization of the EU’s operations, instead of empowering a confederation, is the real issue. The former view is flawed. It is time for Europe, as it builds up its defense and develops real deterrence, to enter the next phase of its construction and to shift toward the building of a confederation.
A confederation would allow defense, foreign policy, economic policies and trade to be unified in a central European institution, while the individual states would retain their authority. This step would allow the EU to be more than an economic zone that clumsily does geopolitics. It could reset itself and come up with a real and clear political vision that allows countries to cooperate closely on important issues, such as security and economic stability, while preserving national sovereignty and cultural identities.
The EU needs to evolve into a confederation, while preserving regional autonomy. This is its true strength.
- Khaled Abou Zahr is the founder of SpaceQuest Ventures, a space-focused investment platform. He is CEO of EurabiaMedia and editor of Al-Watan Al-Arabi