Academics and students attended this event, touching on the EU’s development; the social market economy; Germany’s European hegemony, and of course the ongoing war Ukraine. Politics and International Relations Undergrad, Benjamin Van Broeckhuijsen summarises the discussion here.
For the school’s end of term event, academics and students came together to attend a conversation panel between Hans Kundnani, Head of the European Programme at Chatham House, and Professor Richard Whitman, one of the leading experts at the university on the EU and its foreign policy. The discussion topic was ‘The future of Europe after the war in Ukraine’, which took some interesting detours into the EU’s development; the social market economy, Germany’s European hegemony, and its democratic deficit. Indeed, the topic of the ongoing war in Ukraine had hardly been mentioned with about ten minutes to spare, but that did not take away from the quality of the conversation and the subsequent Q&A.
Kundnani started off by describing what his role at Chatham House entails and how think tanks operate, explaining funding structures and the concept of ‘Track II diplomacy’. The conversation then went into Europe’s journey after the Treaty of Lisbon. Capturing the feelings of many Europeans, Hans argued that “the EU has transformed in a troubling way”. His optimism about the EU has faded in part due to the handling of the European Debt Crisis, with European figureheads such as Germany leading the way in coercing member countries to further integrate. An interesting point was raised about the core concept of a European Union being, in part, to deal with German hegemony – a goal that has seemingly been abandoned in the name of economic progress.
What the model once stood for has been replaced by the structural imposing of austerity and economic reform to increase competitiveness. Enlargement of the EU has strengthened its liberal bloc, meaning that the Eurozone has committed to right-wing, neo-liberal economic policy without democratic contestation. Despite labelling the EU a “disaster in democratic terms”, during the Q&A after the discussion, Kundnani contended that for all its flaws, the EU is the West’s best example at attempting to promote democracy.
When Ukraine became the focal point of the conversation, the speakers commenced by discussing its wish to join NATO and the EU. Hans remarked that most of the countries that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007 became a part of NATO first, creating the framework for what the EU has become. This is in sharp contrast with Ukraine’s current path to possible EU membership. Alluding to Russia’s motivation for starting the war, it was argued that if Russia wanted to stop the European integration of Ukraine, it needed to be done prior to the security guarantee that NATO could give the country. This later led to a question from the crowd, asking how Chatham House’s European Programme (and Kundnani in particular), reacted to Russian aggression in Ukraine. Comparing his reaction to that of the Chatham House Russia Programme, which was “more hawkish on Russia”, Kundnani took a Mearsheimer-like stance. He argued that the West is at least partially to blame, and that we have seen similar circumstances in Syria where “half a million people were killed (…) and as horrible as that is, there is not much we can do about it”. Hans voiced his frustration about the current debate on Ukraine, noting that it is framed as if we are still in the 1990’s, and can intervene in modern conflicts in the same way we did in the Balkans.