Enduring EU Solidarity during COVID-19

Decision making at the EU level is not easy. For every policy initiative and directive, decisions need to go through a needle’s eye.

After all, it’s not so much for a Union rising from the ashes of horrific wars, to get it institutionalized from a simple economic community to a complex political one while knotting up diverse nation-interests into a fabric of humanitarian values and social solidarity.

The vulnerable and devastated Europe in its 1950s was desperate to set up a ‘polity’ – a ‘Leviathan’ that ensures that horrors of war could never be repeated.

Robert Schuman’s vision of – creating common institutions to make war not just unthinkable and materially impossible – not only changed the destiny of Europe, but it led to creating an idea that was believed to have lived for generations – the European Union that we know today.

The subprime economic crisis; the associated eurozone turmoil; bankruptcy of some national economies with resultant debt crisis; massive unemployment during and after 2008 – all put the EU under stress constantly threatening the European agenda of an ‘integrated Europe’.

However, amid the COVID-19 crisis, there are speculations over the crumbling of the EU solidarity and its integration project.

What still remains as a puzzle is to see how this solidarity endures through ages and has stood the time of crisis throughout?

The point of discussion in this paper is to explore the dynamics of the EU solidarity during the COVID-19 pandemic and how the EU is tackling the crisis despite the divergence of interests?.

Stumbling EU Solidarity

Since 2008, the European Union has found itself in one of the greatest concatenations of crises since its inception.

The subprime economic crisis; the associated eurozone turmoil; bankruptcy of some national economies with resultant debt crisis; massive unemployment during and after 2008 – all put the EU under stress constantly threatening the European agenda of an ‘integrated Europe’.

In spite of diverse policy measures (e.g., the ‘European Financial Stability Facility’, the European Stability Mechanism’, and the Stability growth pact’) to deal with infected economies at that time, what irked the crisis-stricken members was EU’s commitment for a bail-out package that discarded ‘communitarization of debts’ and calling upon imposing strict austerity measures for countries threatened with bankruptcy – reaction commentators viewed as the ‘end of EU solidarity’ (Habermas 2017).

What intensified the rift further, is when EU-member countries turned against each other during a negotiation over economic rescue package – more appropriately called ‘Eurobonds’  or “Coronabonds”.

The refugee crisis in 2015, that originated from beyond the EU borders with an eventual deluge of immigrants crossing borders for shelter in various member states – yet again shook the EU solidarity, this time over a ‘common asylum policy’ and a ‘mechanism of admission and integration’.

The rise of conservative populist regimes in France, UK, Denmark, Italy Spain; the unexpected Brexit referendum; the revival of Eurocentric xenophobia across Europe has further deepened the curve of EU solidarity.

The ongoing pandemic is testing the concept of European solidarity yet again. The EU is facing the ‘moment of crises’, as coronavirus pandemic is seemingly ripping apart EU solidarity and testing the resilience of the 27-nation bloc.

Almost abruptly when the fall out of Coronavirus in Wuhan gradually hit Italy and engulfed rest of Europe including Spain, Germany, the UK, France, and had taken at worst toll on the death of millions in Europe, the European nations began turning inward protecting own boundaries and citizens’ needs first, overlooking the imminent need to assist fellow EU neighbors and standing together to contain the virus.

For the first time in decades, ‘every nation for itself’ mentality gripped the continent with Denmark, Poland, Czech Republic, Germany, France blatantly closing their borders; nationalizing supply of facemasks; restricted vital medical supplies; and banned the export of essential protective gear including ventilators to the needy and vulnerable countries like Italy and Austria.

Sidelining the EU solidarity in the face of national interest led to sparking outrage across Europe. The continuous apathy and non-reciprocity of member states towards contagious countries like Italy were reinstated when the EU took up preemptive measures and approved €50 million grant to Italy for producing ventilators and personal protective equipment by itself.

The Divided Core?

What intensified the rift further, is when EU-member countries turned against each other during a negotiation over economic rescue package – more appropriately called ‘Eurobonds’  or “Coronabonds”.

The relations between Northern and Southern member states soared up – similar to what happened during the Eurozone debt crisis of 2008.

The divergence between countries to issue joint bonds to raise long-term money to stave off the pandemic for all EU members, took place due to strong resistance from the “frugal four” – Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, and Finland – who were apprehensive about financing the massive debt of southern European countries like Italy, Spain and others.

This aversion was rooted much in continuous stagnancy in the economy, gross unemployment rate, and public sector-debt, that Italy, Spain, etc. have been facing even before the Coronavirus outbreak – a reminiscent of the Greek crisis a decade ago, that pulled down the EU’s overall economic growth and depreciation of Euro.

Conversely, Italy and its accomplices like France and Spain got disgruntled over the fading collective solidarity in mitigating the crisis and warned of a possible collapse of the “EU project”, unless the polity extends its support to the ailing economies caused by COVID-19 pandemic.

An interesting recent monograph further explored this puzzle through an empirical study, assessing if the majority of all Europeans and a majority in each European country, stood up for the idea of European solidarity.

Italy’s Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte spelled out: “European Union risks failing as a project in the Coronavirus crisis,” and cautioned the European Union to rise to the challenge of what he calls “the biggest test since the Second World War”.

Puzzle of the EU Solidarity

What riddles international scholars is of the continuous divergence and polarization among member countries that seemingly revealed a lack of unity in the EU and yet that has not created a cleavage in the cohesion of European agenda.

In unraveling this puzzle, Eriksen (2014) holds that a ‘lock-in mechanism’ has been at the core of setting up the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1952, which tied up European states in cooperative schemes.

By ‘communitarization’ of the materials of war – ‘coal and steel’ – the ECSC made war structurally impossible in the future. The eventual formation of the EU institutions; common market; Schengen-area etc. further legitimized the process of interdependence, collective solidarity and cooperativeness between the states – all that intensified European unity.

An interesting recent monograph further explored this puzzle through an empirical study, assessing if the majority of all Europeans and a majority in each European country, stood up for the idea of European solidarity.

The empirical survey was conducted in 13 European countries in 2016. The study noted significant unanimity among the EU citizens over stronger solidarity with citizens of other EU countries.

The solidarity was tested on various grounds: (i) two-thirds of respondents approved in support of ‘welfare-state solidarity’ and sought for the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor people across the EU.

Differences in country wise response to approve this were rather least; (ii) in terms of territorial solidarity, more than 70 percent of respondents approved of reducing spatial differences among EU member states; (iii) with respect to fiscal solidarity, majority of respondents agreed in supporting the crisis-stricken EU countries through emergency aid.

However, differences among 13 countries were more visible in keeping the commitments for European fiscal solidarity.

This may turn in asymmetric national approaches into a more converging Eurocentric approach to mitigate the problem and get resurrect from the ashes of COVID-19.

The majority of respondents in 13 countries parted their views when it came to showing EU solidarity over the refugee crisis and in fact negated it the most.

As such presumptions held by Euro-skeptics or conservatives over crumbling of the EU solidarity seemingly stand flat, as the majority of EU citizens seem to be driven towards institutionalization of European solidarity and more towards deepening its shared values.

Conclusion

The EU’s stumbling position over migration; euro-zone reforms and COVID-19 crisis seemingly maybe tearing apart the EU’s solidarity principle, yet, it all acts as a bedrock for the EU since its inception.

For the EU solidarity coincides with the identity of the EU being a ‘normative actor’, it acts upon the EU’s humanitarian and normative values and has been the guiding principle for European integration.

Member countries are aware of how their historical necessity of survival has been conditional on nurturing these shared values rather than snubbing it off.

Such speculations over ending the EU project thus become a distant dream for the conservatives. It is rather a good opportunity for the EU to consider for a Comprehensive European Exit strategy from the COVID-19 pandemic in lieu of such divergence in national interests.

This may turn in asymmetric national approaches into a more converging Eurocentric approach to mitigate the problem and get resurrect from the ashes of COVID-19.

(The writer is an Assistant Professor of International Relations at Galgotias University, India)