Outbreak a test of Europe’s capabilities

Thanks to the rapid increase in European Union membership since the beginning of the 21st century, European integration has been carried forward with heavy burdens. Since 2009, Europe has faced the sovereign debt crisis, refugee crisis and Brexit. The COVID-19 pandemic has become another major crisis, with sweeping and far-reaching impacts on the EU and European countries.

Severity of outbreak underestimated

First, European countries underestimated the severity of the pandemic while overestimating their medical and epidemic prevention capabilities. Therefore initially they were not vigilant enough and responded poorly to the health crisis by “focusing on treatment rather than prevention”. The United Kingdom government even pursued, for a short time though, “herd immunity”, which caused the situation to spiral out of control.

In fact, pandemic emergencies have been reported in Italy, Spain, France and Germany, and none of the 27 EU member states has been spared.

As the pandemic situation worsened, European countries shifted their focus to prevention and control in mid-March. Measures such as “lockdown” and “grounding” were upgraded, and the most stringent social control arrangements in peacetime have been made. Borders within the EU erased by the Schengen Agreement reappeared as EU member states closed all their external borders. With the flow of people and logistics blocked, and “non-essential” public places closed, economic and social life has slowed, and the normal order within countries and globally has been interrupted.

Second, although not all European countries have suspended work and production, industrial chains have come to a halt, and supply chains have been disrupted. Debts of different types have sharply increased and financial markets are in considerable turbulence. To save their economies, release resources and inject liquidity into the market, European countries have adopted a combination of economic bailout and financial laws, and the EU has launched a rescue package.

However, European countries’ GDP growth has slowed down. Their annual economic growth is expected to be between minus 5 percent and minus 2 percent. Whether their economic development graph will be V-shaped, U-shaped or L-shaped depends on many factors, but there is no doubt economic losses will exceed those during the EU sovereign debt crisis.

Unemployment rising and racial conflicts increasing

Third, labor-intensive small and medium-sized enterprises, especially in the service sector, have suffered a hard blow. With rising unemployment rates, refugees and immigrants are facing even more dire conditions, social panic and public discontent are growing, and racial discrimination is intensifying ethnic conflicts, which will lead to serious social problems in the future.

Fourth, politically speaking, the institutional models, governance capabilities, comprehensive strength and cultural aspects of all countries have been severely tested, though opportunities for strengthening public power and rallying people have arisen. And due to Europe’s overall effective response to the novel coronavirus later, the support rates of the governments of France, Germany and some other European countries have increased instead of declining.

Yet it is evident that extreme forces are using public grievances to stir up trouble, parochialism and nationalism are rising, populism is spreading, uncertainties are increasing, and the urge to leave the EU among people of some countries is growing.

Test for traditional ideas and norms of humanity

Fifth, as for concepts, in the face of epidemics and catastrophes, traditional ideas and institutional norms of humanity are severely tested, prompting people to reflect on national governance models and their effectiveness. This is exactly what has been happening in the EU. Before the pandemic, many Europeans believed economic globalization had developed too rapidly, even “surpassed” its imagined frontiers, which made leading countries gradually lose their monopolies on wealth.

The rapid spread of the novel coronavirus, partly due to the convenience of travel, has triggered a new round of debate on globalization and European integration. Nation states have once again shown their dominant power in the face of this major health crisis, but the supranational governance structure appears inadequate with the concept of sovereignty making a strong return and the arrogance of the traditional “European Center” mentalaction, ity sustaining a blow.

And sixth, the European Parliament, European Commission or European Council cannot replace the governments of sovereign member states of the EU as the epidemic prevention and health authority. The EU member states’ early response was relatively passive as their “leader” was absent initially when they faced trouble. After the end of March, in response to member states going their own way, insufficient coordination and to new challenges in integration, the EU made a series of important adjustments to its anti-virus strategy.

EU trying to play leading role in anti-virus fight

The EU has opened a green channel for the supply of materials, launched a €540 billion ($609.94 billion) anti-pandemic plan, strengthened its coordination mechanism, emphasized unified promoted the establishment of a more flexible national assistance system, helped member states to obtain anti-epidemic funds through financial channels, sought to deepen cooperation, and promoted the “general mobilization” of Europe to play a leading role in the global fight against the pandemic.

But the EU also faces multiple dilemmas: the imperfect design of the European integration system, insufficient authorization and empowerment of the EU’s governance system, deficiencies in the decentralized political framework and “multi-level governance” structure are difficult problems to address, while leading power and crisis management mechanisms remain weak.

After the epidemic broke out, EU member states failed to help each other. As a result, people of Italy, Spain and some other countries that were “abandoned” by the EU raised “exit EU” calls, forcing the European Commission president to apologise for the EU’s failure to come to Italy’s help.

With concerns that Brexit could have a domino effect on other EU member states, the EU faces new cohesion and credibility tests. The pandemic is likely to accelerate the reshaping of civilization and reforming of the world order.

The fight against the coronavirus pandemic shows Europe could develop in two directions.

In the first, it will learn the lessons and “mend the fold after the sheep have been stolen”, in order to raise regional integration to a new level.

In the second, it could see the rise of “national centralism”, aggravation of the “discrete” mentality of

European society and the further weakening of the momentum of integrated development.

That the EU was established is proof of the success of regional integration. While recognizing the difficulties and shortcomings of the EU, we cannot ignore its crisis response and self-healing capabilities, nor should we entertain negative opinions about Europe.

Europe’s crisis response should not be ignored

That the EU was established is proof of the success of regional integration. While recognizing the difficulties and shortcomings of the EU, we cannot ignore its crisis response and self-healing capabilities, nor should we entertain negative opinions about Europe. It has existing operational coordination mechanisms and policy tool kits for meeting collective challenges within the EU framework, such as the “Decision on Serious Cross-Border Threats to Health” adopted in 2013, and the “European Stability Mechanism” and “European Union Solidarity Fund” which can be activated in extreme cases.

The EU’s €540 billion anti-pandemic rescue package is a key step toward consolidating the front in the fight against the pandemic. The coronavirus outbreak has provided the EU with an opportunity to improve its crisis management mechanism. And the EU’s internal construction in the future will depend not only on how soon it can contain the pandemic, but also on its efforts to adapt to changing situations and upgrade its mechanisms.

The author is a senior adviser to the Institute for Global Cooperation and Understanding, Peking University, a member of the Standing Committee of the CPPCC National Committee, and a former minister of Overseas Chinese Affairs Office of the State Council.

The views don’t necessarily reflect those of China Daily.