Europe and Romania urgently need the same antidote

The dramatic changes we are experiencing from a geopolitical perspective have caught Europe, but also Romania, off guard. The US is not only signaling a geostrategic and military decoupling from Europe, but its leaders seem motivated to encourage nationalist and anti-European political parties, thus shaking the entire edifice that was the basis of peace and prosperity in Europe after the Second World War.

Under these circumstances, both Europe and Romania must hope for the best, that is, preserving the strategic relationship with the US, but prepare for the worst. This essentially means two things: saving the European ideal of prosperity through unity and integration, and, on the other hand, developing an European military alliance, including Great Britain and Norway.

But the rapid achievement of such existentially important objectives has no chance of success as long as society, the political world, countries, but especially decision-making centers remain divided, making any decision-making process slow or impossible to complete. European political elites are at a moment when, more than ever, they must put aside endless debates and prioritize the truly important objectives, the huge stakes, which require appropriate leadership. But this reset of the way of doing politics to counter existing threats, to build a relevant geopolitical position, cannot be done without a consolidation of European countries that want to take their integration to a new level.

This means that for Europe it becomes imperative to build a “hard core”. In the current, extremely tense and unstable context, it is increasingly evident that the EU is incapable of taking important decisions in an efficient manner, and when it does, either the low speed is exasperating or the need for compromise leads to insufficiently ambitious decisions.

The EU’s objective of becoming a geopolitical force, a military force, has no chance of succeeding without deeper integration on all dimensions: political, economic, military. It is obvious that not all countries are ready for this or even consider it appropriate. For this reason, a group of countries sufficiently representative in terms of size and economic power will have to start a process of deep integration.

Yes, this would create a two-speed European Union. But it is increasingly evident that the current fragmentation of the European Union makes it dysfunctional in relation to the responsibilities and challenges that face it. A strong Europe can only be built by relying on a much deeper trust than the one that exists currently in such different doses between EU states. A trust that would allow for the adoption of trans-European decisions by majority vote, that would allow an Italian bank to buy a German bank without nationalist obstacles or that would not motivate each country to produce its own howitzer or tank. To give just three examples…

If today there are countries that have enough confidence to further integrate their political decisions, fiscal policies, economies, defense industries and armies, then they should do so without waiting for everyone’s consensus. There is no time to waste. The power of example, of leadership, is needed, and others will join in. Signs in this direction are beginning to appear, but they are still too timid and too hesitant. The illusion is still maintained that the EU will be able to rise to the level of current challenges with narrow, somewhat improvised formats, which, lacking clear criteria for membership, undermine the European construction by creating confusion and frustration.

Such an “antidote” is also valid in the case of Romania. A “hard core” would mean a tight and unconditional coordination of all parties that support Romania’s membership in the Western world, both economically and militarily. The first sign that such a coalition of pro-Western forces is emerging would be the support of a single candidate in the presidential elections, that pro-European candidate, regardless of his political affiliation or non-affiliation, with maximum chances of being voted for by most Romanians. Once the parliamentary elections are over, the motivation for the traction of the parties by the presidential candidates no longer has any justification. It is a moment when petty, political ambitions, egos become totally insignificant relative to the objective that Romania re-become a solid and respected member of the European Union and NATO.

The next step after the presidential elections would be that, regardless of their outcome, a unity government of all pro-Western parties would be created. Political struggles are the key to any healthy democratic society, but now, all pro-Western parties must put aside their disagreements and focus on the common objectives they have and which, behold, require broad political support to be promoted.

The creation of a comprehensive pro-European unity government would send an important signal to the country that all the pro-European parties really do make the geopolitical orientation and the solidity of Romania’s security their zero priority, which outweighs any other differences of opinion on domestic policy issues. But it would not be just about symbolism.

As I said on another occasion, Romania desperately needs to secure the financial resources necessary to increase the defense budget, up to a doubling of the amount currently allocated. Given the already very large budget deficit, its rapid correction in parallel with the prioritization of defense spending will require a series of unpopular solutions that will only be able implemented with broad political support.

In a NATO with a diminished or disappearing US presence, the importance of each member and, especially, of the large countries will increase significantly. Romania will have to assume increasing responsibilities as well as the related costs. Real solidarity always works only both ways. Romania will not be able to be a security beneficiary without also being a security provider. And this means difficult decisions and substantial resources for which a broad political consensus is needed.

Finally, a question that, following the above considerations, might appear in the reader’s mind. What chances does Romania have to be part of a future hard core of Europe?

I think that, in a first phase, chances are rather limited. I say this because size is an advantage, but it is far from being sufficient, other assets being absolutely necessary. The size and solidity of the economy will matter, a criterion that Romania does not meet yet, given that it currently has a major vulnerability in terms of its record budget deficit and its inability to absorb European funds.

The willingness to accept decisions taken on the basis of the majority principle in the integrated forums of the hard core will also be important, such a decision-making system being essential for eliminating the blockages that appear today in European decisions. Is Romanian society ready for this?

Respecting and cultivating European and liberal democratic values ​​related to democracy, the separation of powers in the state, an independent and efficient judiciary, and the fight against corruption will be equally essential qualifying criteria. No one in Europe today has the time and patience to be the guardian of democracy in Romania or other European countries, which will rather be left outside a hard core with consolidated liberal democracies.

Finally, the quality of leaders will be of great importance. As European countries close ranks, and especially in a hard core, relationships between leaders will be increasingly personal, more informal. Communication will be more direct, more spontaneous and faster. This will require leaders with similar know-how, skills and seniority who respect each other and have the comfort of teaming together from equal positions.

Without creating consolidated nuclei of resistance to nationalism, isolationism and the concerted attack on liberal values, neither Europe nor Romania will have a chance to defend themselves and become stronger.

But the difficulty of achieving such ambitious and unprecedented mechanisms of governance is similar to the stakes that require them. Very high.