German Chancellor Angela Merkel has two weeks to reach a deal with her European counterparts about how to admit and register asylum seekers. Failing that, her job could well be on the line.
This small breathing space was gained after a hastily patched-up agreement was reached on June 18 between Merkel and Horst Seehofer, Germany’s interior minister and leader of the Christian Social Union, which is based in Bavaria.
After a blistering dispute inside Merkel’s conservative bloc that pitted the two strongminded personalities against each other, Merkel managed to win some time. She has consistently called for a Europe-wide accord over how to register asylum seekers, something that has eluded the EU for nearly two decades.
Seehofer, whose party is fighting to prevent big losses as the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) gains support ahead of elections in Bavaria in October, has insisted that asylum seekers be stopped at the German border and sent back to the EU country into which they first entered.
Knowing full well that an agreement on asylum will not be possible at next week’s European Council summit, Merkel is instead hoping to clinch bilateral deals with Italy, Greece, and other member states. So much for a Europe-wide deal. But if she can achieve on the bilateral level what she cannot achieve on the EU level, maybe Merkel can sit out her biggest crisis since becoming chancellor in late 2005.
It’s not certain, but two things are. The first is that French President Emmanuel Macron’s ambitious plans for a more integrated Europe, which would include a long-overdue reform of the eurozone, will not be realized. Merkel’s own conservative bloc opposes some of these major changes as do other eurozone countries, including the Netherlands. For some other countries, the refugee issue takes precedence over EU reforms.
Second, U.S. President Donald Trump is intent on undermining Merkel, intent on weakening Europe, and intent on supporting leaders, such as Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who have questioned the basic values upon which the EU was built.
As shown during the recent G7 summit in Canada, Trump is hell-bent on destroying the multilateral order that the United States built with its Western European allies after 1945. Germany in particular and the EU in general have consistently defended this multilateral order. It was these rules-based institutions that kept the transatlantic alliance together and provided the West with a political, economic, and moral compass.
Trump’s protectionist trade policies and his disdain for multilateral accords, such as the Iran nuclear deal, are bad enough. His constant verbal attacks on Merkel are dangerous. Trump may win lots of brownie points from the AfD and from nationalist-conservative leaders such as Orbán for his verbal assaults against the chancellor.
But behind those verbal attacks is a disquieting agenda in which Germany would descend to the level that Trump wishes: a country that would close its borders; a country that would have its economy weakened by American tariffs on steel, aluminum, and car imports; a country that sees the White House dismantling the multilateral order that Germany has so much depended upon. Taken together, these could spell ruin for Germany—and, implicitly, for the EU.
That is why Trump’s personal attacks on Merkel are so dangerous. It’s as if he is seeking “regime change” in Berlin. Let’s not imagine what kind of chancellor he would like to see in Berlin.
The G7 debacle should have been enough to push Europe closer together. But their agendas are short term and—with few exceptions, such as Macron’s—are not based on strategic preparedness. The bigger picture rarely gets a look in. That picture is about the future of the multilateral, Western, liberal order and how to defend it.
Britain, France, and Germany are doing their utmost to keep the Iran deal together, while the EU has wide support for upholding the Paris accord on climate change. But institutionally and politically, these efforts pale in comparison with the challenge facing European leaders in reaching a viable agreement over refugees, migrants, and asylum seekers.
Such an agreement cannot be separated from the need for Europe to have a strong defense, security, and foreign policy. They are all linked. If that is not obvious by now, then Trump will have a free hand to further disrupt Europe.
Comments(4)
Merkel's disastrous unilateral policies and stubborn refusal to listen to anyone but rich globalists like GSoros have put Europe squarely in this mess. She is not the solution but rather needs to go to find one.
The question is to modify the Schenghen Agreement in order not to turn the euro-periphery (south Europe) into a dump of human souls. Chancelor Merkel is unable to tackle the issue, Macron is too weak in front of the Emperor (Germany) and the EU is one step closer to one more failure (after the debt crisis), i.e. one step closer to be dissolved.
In most things, I’m an insufferable optimist but your analysis on Trump/Merkel/ Macron gives me serious chills for future of liberal democracies. .
The author equates Europe with the EU, which would have been a natural and desirable solution for a continent scarred by wars for its recorded history. This included the war started in 1914, which has never ended and could again become hot, this time Sun hot. War to End All Wars by Ending the Biosphere is an accurate assertion. Europe, the continent of fallen worldwide Empires is far more than the EU, it includes Russia (De Gaulle) and Turkey (Obama); it is not just the two names, but a shared history which goes on and on, as brutal as ever. If there is a shared value for this continent, it is world Wide Empire, concept invented by Cyrus the Great. Times have changed, and this extended Europe with 1 billion people is now becoming a small part of the larger world. The author doesn’t acknowledge this reality when referring to the JCPOA, signed also by China (and Russia), and serious omission, India (super hyper power in waiting, calculating and preparing). JCPOA is a complex, separate topic, the immediate conclusion is that more time should have been given, but the euro could come under attack, with devastating economic consequences for everybody, including a Bretton Woods now near collapse. The Accord de Paris, obsessively referred all over the media, is irrelevant in the context of the Limits of Growth (1972) as well as its 2004 update. In full Anthropocene extinction, with Germany and France looking into reducing nuclear power, the Accord de Paris seem more and more the basis for some other undeserved Nobel Prize. Bannon elevating Orban, or Farage, or Italy’s coalition is a lateral discussion. The discussion between Bannon and the privileged Zakaria in Italy is a must see, but the underlying socio-economic analysis must start in Mont Pelerin, go through the Washington consensus, and continue with Fukuyama. It is these polices rejected by the peoples of Europe, including Picketty (or Keynes). It is Italy, Hungary, Poland, Austria, Michigan, Ohio and much more rejecting these polices, as they did in 2008 when electing Obama. In this context Merkel is collateral damage, a solid leader with a solid legacy which should be praised, not tarnished. It is almost painful to watch the EU collapsing under these polices, with just a million refugees having a Sarajevo effect on an edifice which must last. The assassination of the Archduke was made possible by the driver taking a wrong turn and driving the target to Princip’s gun. It is now a repeat as a farce.
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.