Leadership crisis
ALONGSIDE the perennial lament about "uncertainty" in global markets and politics, nothing is decried quite as often as "lack of leadership. " From the eurozone crisis to intervention in internal conflicts to Britain's place in Europe, and on to America's crisis of governance and China's rising nationalism, the purported absence of leadership is regularly cited as a primary cause of our global economic and political malaise. Looking back over Europe's past six months, however, a curious picture emerges, one that suggests a realisation on the part of some its leaders that the time for prevarica- tion must come to an end.
Angela Merkel's steadfast refusal to succumb to the false choice of fast-forwarded federalism or inevitable break-up of the European Union; Mario Draghi's come-what-may affirmation of the European Central Bank's commitment to the common currency; Francois Hollande's perilous intervention in Mali at its hour of Islamist danger; and David Cameron's bold combination of a call for genuine reform of the EU with a promise of an in-out referendum for the British people - whatever else may be said about these decisions, they are object lessons in leadership.
Nothing makes this clearer than the findings of a recent poll that only one in three Britons would vote to stay in the EU if given an in-out choice in a referendum. This is a nightmare prospect for the British prime minister, not least in light of the eloquent case he made in his Europe speech last month for a strong and vital role for Britain in an open, diverse and competitive Europe.
Given the history of referendums as captives of populist politics, the poll result cannot come as a surprise. What Cameron's speech makes clear - and where he was willing to demonstrate genuine leadership - is that the true starting point for debate has to be recognition of the rapidly changing global economy and the need to think in aggressive and innovative ways about how to keep Britain, and the EU, competitive for the next generation.
What Cameron referred to as a "global race of nations" is a very real phenomenon, however unwelcome the prospect may be in some of the more unreconstructed corners of Europe. Faced with this reality, reform of the EU is not just an opportunity, but a necessity, unless the aging and shrinking societies of Europe are prepared to doom themselves to a state of accelerating decline. This Cameron understands, and so does a far greater number of business and political leaders on the Continent than the reaction to his speech would suggest. A "coalition of the willing" for a more multifaceted, more flexible, more engaged EU - with Britain as a core member alongside a pivotal Germany - is waiting to be built.
This is the leadership lenge - and opportunity - chal
that Cameron has set himself. You'd think a French president faced with as acute a long-term economic crisis as any on the Continent would have better things to do than commit blood and treasure to stopping an Islamist takeover of an African state of little strategic consequence.
Yet faced with the prospect of Qaeda-linked groups sweeping the state of Mali and imposing an internally brutal and externally destabilising form of rule, Hollande acted - for France, and for Africa. That he did so at the request of the Malian government, and that France enjoyed the support of Mali's neighbours and an endorsement from the United Nations Security Council, only underscores the risks of reversal should the situation on the ground grow difficult, as it most likely will.
Creating long-term stability in the Sahel and defeating the militant groups operating with nearimpunity throughout the region's ungoverned spaces are noble objectives that few would call remotely realistic. The shadows of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya will continue to bedevil proponents of intervention everywhere - as will its glaring absence in the far more strategically significant case of Syria. Yet Hollande refused to make the best the enemy of the good, and sent in the military. For a man suffering from invidious comparisons with his hyperactive predecessor, this was not a case of cowardice.
No one has shown a steadier hand - or a more impregnable composure - in the face of Europe's existential crisis than the German chancellor. In many respects an uninspiring domestic politician, Angela Merkel has nevertheless emerged as a singular leader in Europe, just as powerfully defined by what she refused to do as by what she was willing to concede in the heat of the moment. The decisions taken in Berlin, London, Paris and Frankfurt may not deliver the intended results, and the leaders who took them may not be rewarded - Mario Monti's grim fate in this week's Italian election results makes that plain. There are perils aplenty in the calls Draghi, Hollande, Cameron and Merkel made. But at least they cannot be accused of a lack of leadership.