One virus, one nation
The EU close to the disaster in the face of COVID-19 and nationalisms
The future is uncertain.
If there is something that the history of humanity shows us, it is that everything can be cut short by a mere unforeseen event, and it seems that something like this is happening within the European Union.
La crisis of thecoronabonds", Europe as the epicenter of the pandemic, the closure of borders, massive debt by Member States, the closed economy…not to mention some saturated health systems and thousands of deaths throughout the continent.
These are many of the disastrous consequences of a disastrous crisis that, beyond the EU, threatens the entire globe and that many believe will put the final point to the European unification project.
It is true that predicting the destruction of the EU has become a kind of hobby for politicians and political scientists around the world practically since its creation: it was said that the EU was a failed project after the failure of the Constitutional Treaty, It was stated that the EU It would not be as we know it again After Brexit, also during the sovereign debt crisis, it was stated that the EU would not overcome economic difficulties and political tensions.
However, The measures of the founding Treaty were implemented in the Treaty of LisbonFollowing British mismanagement of Brexit, polls showed a resurgence in support for the EU in the remaining 27 member states and the sovereign debt crisis resulted in the creation of new mechanisms for economic intervention by institutions. of the EU.
It is not true that the EU has not suffered any damage or that it has not been questioned, but, at the end of the day, it has survived all these crises. Why would the coronavirus be different?
Now this is serious
There are 2 reasons why the Coronavirus could be a crisis that surpasses the EU: The first consists of the dimensions and characteristics of the crisis.
COVID-19 attacks more than just the health systems of the Member States, it also attacks their economies and rule of law..
This in itself is unprecedented, in the worst of the previous crises that the European Union has faced, it has not had to defend itself on so many fronts, especially on some that are practically unexplored.
And part of the risk that this crisis poses for the EU comes from the fact that we are facing a health crisis.
The EU institutions have no way of dealing with a health crisis, Original Law does not attribute to the Union any competence in matters of health, beyond coordinating, supporting or complementing the actions of the Member States regarding the protection and improvement of human health (article 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union).
This has an implicit consequence regarding the role of the EU in the face of the crisis, COVID-19 is not seen and has not been seen as a responsibility of the EU, but of the governments of the Member States.
EU role
In this crisis The role of the EU is to provide economic and political support to the internal crisis.
The EU must provide in times of need, while national authorities are responsible for fixing the problem.
And, definitely, the EU provides: the European central bank has initiated an unprecedented massive debt purchase project, while funds from the Emergency Relief Instrument, rescEU and additional funds for the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control have been activated.
But when the EU does not provide, there will be problems.
This is basically the situation, and it is not something isolated, it is part of the strong blow to globalizing process What the Coronavirus crisis is affecting globally.
In a globalized world in which nationalism and populism look for excuses to question the role of supranational institutions in the world order, the Coronavirus has been a very useful tool for its consolidation.
In a globalized world in which nationalisms and populisms look for excuses to question the role of supranational institutions in the world order, the Coronavirus has been a very useful tool for them.
Two Perspectives
We can say that, at a global level, there are two perspectives regarding the interpretation of International Relations and the way in which to face the pandemic
Defenders of the European Union
The first is the one officially defended by the European Union and whose main bastion is Germany and Angela Merkel -country and leader who are defending it most vehemently-, the perspective of cooperation and solidarity.
It is understood that in the face of a global crisis, global action is necessary; international governance institutions and the role of International Organizations are defended as essential to confront the crisis.
Defenders of Nationalism and Populism
The second is that defended by States led by nationalist or populist Governments, The best example of this being the USA. and its President Donald Trump, without forgetting others like Bolsonaro's Brazil. This perspective takes into account that The only way to confront the virus is through the institutions of the States themselves.
Actions of cooperation and solidarity make no sense given that the absolute priority is to solve the situation within its borders and the ineffectiveness of international cooperation to achieve this goal is protested.
Precisely here comes the The second reason why the coronavirus may mean the end of the EU as we know it, nationalism.
This last national-populist perspective is the one that represents a danger for the EU, since there is a direct incompatibility between the EU and this nationalist way of understanding (or not understanding) International Relations:
Nationalism and the Union
Nationalism vindicates the nation-state.
Nationalist ideology focuses on the question of sovereignty, vindication of national identity the claim of the power of the nation, the power of the State, is inexorably derived.
This power of the State must reside in national sovereignty (understood in a more or less democratic way), which is why the first national kingdoms emerged from the abandonment of medieval polyarchy and the universalism of the Church.
Nationalism has served to delimit a territory as sovereign and its own, in competition with the outside.
Thus, the nationalist conflict is born between various agents who compete to exercise sovereignty over a territory and, as an identification of the individual with his or her nation occurs, a desire for national unity is produced.
The unified nation with unified power is intended.
This is why movements are described as “anti-globalization”, given that globalization achieves communication between the peoples of the earth and the creation of the “global society” provides the individual with a new series of influences, external to their control. nation.
This erodes national identity, since national elements are progressively replaced by others from outside.
Nationalism responds to this rejecting outside influences and reclaiming one's own nation and national elements, reinforcing the identification of the individual with his or her nation.
Anti-globalizing character
It is then, precisely due to this “anti-globalizing” character of nationalisms, that there is a direct and flagrant incompatibility between the European Union and nationalist ideologies.
The transfer of powers that occurs in the European Union is the main problem that nationalists have with the EU, since it is interpreted as an attack on the sovereignty of the States, in addition to being the main reason why we consider the EU incompatible with nationalist ideologies, and the reason for this goes back to the origins of the nation-state and the nationalism.
Nationalism aims and seeks the consolidation of the nation-state, it desires the unification of power and centralization in national unity..
A claim that comes from the origin of the nation-state, which, as we have said, was born with the end of polyarchy and the universality of the Church. Just as the nation-state proceeds from the modern rejection of any sovereignty external to its territory or people, contemporary nationalists reject sovereignty external to its territory and external to its people.
That is the problem that nationalisms have with the EU, it is a sovereignty that violates the principle of “only accepting internal sovereignty” on which the nation-state has been based since its origins.
Dad State
Before we have said that "nationalisms and populisms look for excuses to question the role of supranational institutions in the world order", and, as with the EU, Supranational institutions in general are questioned by nationalists precisely because they are a threat to the sole and centralized sovereignty of the State., especially when the State instrumentalizes the “truth”:
“Nationalisms and populisms look for excuses to question the role of supranational institutions in the world order”
As I explained in my Previous Article, "Today we face an unprecedented crisis in which, to protect people, state intervention is necessary in a profound way, And it will be in those countries where there has been an attempt to ensure that the State has less intervention in the lives of individuals where the consequences of the virus will be suffered the most.
In many places, the State has assumed a role that it has never had before, and history teaches us that it will be difficult for it to renounce it.”
Greater state intervention can have many dimensions.
In the example cited, I was referring to an economic point of view, given that the markets were going to suffer, only the forceful intervention of Governments to create “social shields” for its citizens and companies could prevent a major economic and social catastrophe: the market will not be able to save them because the market is closed.
Political and Legal Dimension
The other dimension that we must not forget is the political and legal one.
This is where the narrative of populist politicians in the face of the virus, that is, a populist political discourse in a situation of unprecedented crisis penetrates much more deeply than at any other time.
These types of speeches are usually vitalist character and use warlike language, these are more emotional than exciting and divisive, dichotomies are created that do not have to exist (between people's lives and the economy, between what the Government says and what scientists say).
See: Poland, in the spotlight of public opinion.
We can see notable examples of this in the US, where certain groups described the confinement orders as "attacks on freedom and democracy”.
Support from President Trump
In fact, President Trump himself supported these views.
The danger comes from the next step of this radicalization of political discourse, which is the monopoly of the truth.
When we face a threat of this magnitude and the Government's actions begin to be called saviors, when the vitalist narrative identifies opposition to the State with death and the State with life, we fall into the dangerous situation in which the State obtains the monopoly of truth.
When we face a threat of this magnitude and the Government's actions begin to be called saviors, when the vitalist narrative identifies opposition to the State with death and the State with life, we fall into the dangerous situation in which the State obtains the monopoly of truth
Regarding the monopoly of truth, we can replace the word “State” with the word “Leader” or “Party”, since It is not necessary that populism has established itself in the institutions of the State to make this type of speechesHowever, this speech does not have the same consequences for the population. From here comes the anti-EU narrative of populists.
The EU can be an opponent of the “truth” of the State, since it is not subject to its control. And these national-populist movements and opinions are coming together in the EU right now more than ever before. This is largely due to the crises that the EU has suffered before, which have led many people to distrust it.
Adieu, EU
Before asking ourselves to what extent the EU can disappear, it is pertinent that we take a look at an example of something similar, Brexit.
In an analysis of the political movements after Brexit we can observe how the nationalist and populist discourse of the “Brexiters” promoted by a clearly nationalist party, UKIP and led by populist politicians, such as Boris Johnson, then mayor of London, now Prime Minister (directly influenced by Donald Trump), was enough for a victory for the “leave” in the 2016 referendum (I recommend all readers watch the dramatized documentary Brexit: The Uncivil War, produced by HBO).
It is quite true that the “Brexiters” counted on London's traditional distrust of Brussels but, under the current circumstances, this is surely not necessary to provoke a “Frexit”, “Spexit”, “Gerxit”, etc.
Being pragmatic, It is practically impossible for the EU to suddenly disintegrate after this crisis: If it really ends up disintegrating it will be through a slow process, given that a process as meticulously gradual as that of European unification cannot be destroyed in a single stroke, and it will be through a process that is also painful, due to the deep implementation of the EU, its Law and institutions in the Member States.
In the Middle-Distant Future…
Really It is a more than feasible possibility that in the medium-distant future, we will not have a European Union.
Whether it happens will only be determined by the image that Europeans have of the Union.
And the EU has to do its homework, it is accused of a lack of democracy and an economic Union with structural flaws, since we have a monetary union, but not a fiscal union.
Now is the time to show its citizens that they can trust it. The end? We'll see.
Finally, I want to refer to something I said at the beginning: It is very easy to predict the end of the EU. She Unprecedented and unique international organization in the world.
Taking into account the traditional structure of the nation-state, it seems a miracle that a process that for centuries has been trying to consolidate all sovereignty in the State, suddenly (although not without reasons), reverses after the Second World War to give up its powers and delegate them to a central power.
This desire for unification among Europeans is not easily shaken, history has shown it, but it is not an impossible task.
Brexit has been a mortal blow to the unbreakable “historical law” that according to Kant would lead to the unification of all of Europe under a single Government, and then of the world.
But it was not a mortal blow to the EU, the question is, Will COVID-19 be? Or rather, Will populism and nationalism be?
Hello! I am a jurist and internationalist, semi-finalist of the XIII San Francisco Javier Debate League, fond of debate, photography, Rubik's cubes, maps and history. From Marbella but living in Córdoba.
