Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies: European Ideas Forum 2023

by | Oct 14, 2023

No wonder why the European Ideas Forum is the flagship event of the Martens Centre! It is a professionally organized, high-quality event with interesting topics ranging from geopolitics through education and environment to economics with high-ranking officials and experts from all over the world. This year, the event was hosted in the elegant DoubleTree by Hilton on the 10th and 11th of October. We provide You with insight to some of the various panels.

DAY 1:
Panel 1: What Future for the European Green Deal?

Moderated by Peter Hefele, Policy Director, Martens Centre

Esther De Lange, MEP of the EPP Group and Member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety declared that as long as something is really abstract, political groups can forget about people. But it was always clear to her that if we’re going to do it, we have to do this right: the Green Deal has to be not only green, but a real deal – being a bit patriotic, being a business case for European industry, and making sure that we leave no one behind. Besides, she insisted that we need a Green Industrial Policy that should go hand in hand with the Green Deal. De Lange suggested that the Green Deal should become like a turtle, hard on the outside – fighting an unlevel playing field –, but soft on the inside – protecting those whose otherwise can’t come along.

Michel Barnier, Former Vice President of the European Commission, Former French Minister for Foreign Affairs and Environment and Member of the Martens Centre Academic Council noted that climate change is at the heart of European citizens’ preoccupation. He believes that time spent with citizens is never lost time. Barnier mentioned that the EU had to face at least six conflicts and crises in the past years: the financial crisis, the migration crisis, the Brexit, Covid pandemic, the war in Ukraine and climate change. We were and are forced to react. Luckily, we have succeeded to learn some lessons, and the Commission has made some good decisions in the right direction, according to Barnier. Most people believe that we have to produce less to pollute less, but he claims we should produce more and pollute less.

Deborah Bergamini, Vice Chairperson of the EPP Group in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated that we are at crossroads, in the window of a very profound historic change. Interestingly, polls have shown that the EU citizens’ main concern is becoming poor (primarily because of the skyrocketing cost of living). Who would have thought? But now we have to face this fact, and that some decisions that look right on paper can prove weak or even wrong in reality. Bergamini believes that the Green Deal is our commitment, and Europe can be a role model. But it has to be a good deal, and we have to respect the peculiarities of the Member States. We have to be able to adjust. She highlighted that it’s a matter of vision, not religion – politicians don’t have to apply the latter, they have to be pragmatic.

Ann Mettler, Vice President of Breakthrough Energy started by quoting Jean-Claude Juncker: “you tell me things I don’t want to hear and it’s a good thing”. She agrees that the Green Deal is at a turning point. The EU has realized that we cannot regulate ourselves to net zero. The concern is that the Green Deal has failed to make a compelling business case for the energy transition. What’s more, even though the Americans are starting from behind, so are we – from behind China. We have increased the cost of energy transition through actions that we’ve taken, so we now need urgent interventions to lower the cost. Mettler considers the Green Deal to be closely intertwined with Industry and Competitiveness. She thinks that clean energy transition would be good for our industrial competitiveness. The upfront cost might be a problem – but we will reap the benefits later. Mettler concluded that we are in a slow-motion economic suicide now and no wonder that people fear poverty. In the closing remarks, she pointed out that the EU’s wind industry is on the verge of collapse. “Is that not a reality check?”

Discussion: Europe’s Place in a ‘World of Disorder’
Moderated by Sara Pini, Senior Research Officer, Martens Centre

Alexander Stubb, Former Prime Minister of Finland and Director of the School of Transnational Governance at the European University Institute talked about the multipolar system we are headed to, with three spheres of power. The Global West (Europe, the United States, Canada, South Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand) wants to preserve the current world order – they created it, and it benefits them. The Global East (lead by China, followed by Russia and Iran, with China being strategic, patient and intelligent, and Russia being a disruptive power, a superpower in decline) wants to change the current world order, because they don’t feel it benefits them. But the one that is going to decide the new world order is the Global South (led in Asia by India, in the Middle East by Saudi Arabia, in Africa by South Africa and Nigeria, and in South America by Brazil). Stubb’s message for Europe was the following: “if we want to win this battle for the hearts and the minds and the souls of the Global South, we need to change our behavioural pattern (…) we are way too arrogant (…) we assume too much, we do monologue, we do conditionality, we don’t do dialogue, we don’t do real cooperation”.

Stubb also stressed that we’re about to see two things: the regionalisation of power (with regional, value-based organisations such as the EU becoming strong) and the emergence of cross-continental, non-value-based, “unholy alliances” (like the BRICS). He reminded us that we have to lead by example, not by force. To make a point, he talked about the war in Ukraine and the three things Putin got wrong: he overestimated his own military, he underestimated the Ukrainian military, and he underestimated the unity of the West. Ukraine became more European, and Europe more united than ever. The only worry that Stubb has is that the first World Ward killed imperialism, the second World War fascism, the Cold War communism… so what if Putin’s war kills liberalism? To fight that, the EU needs to embrace a more dignified foreign policy – approaching others by listening to them, not by taking a moral high ground.

Concerning China, Stubb likes how Ursula von der Leyen phrased it: “de-risk, not decouple”. At the same time, he warned us not to make the mistake of comparing China to Russia, and added that China is not an imperialist power, but a patient one: so, let’s not provoke China too much and try to cooperate with them. He highlighted that there are always three possibilities: competition, conflict or cooperation. We need cooperation to keep competition from spilling over into conflict. Stubb explained that right now we don’t have cooperative instruments, which means that if the “World Police” (the US) withdraws from the security market, it’s going to create power vacuums. In the current situation with the terrorist attack on Israel, Hamas filled it. Stubb assumes there’s a bigger geopolitical game in the background where Iran and Russia come into the picture, wanting to destabilize the Middle East in their own interest. He insisted on the de-escalation of the situation, but he also drew attention to other possible hotspots, like the Sahel and Kosovo.

Regarding the EU and the US, Stubb believes in the value cord that binds the two. Simply put, he thinks on most question the EU should follow the US – but there are issues where the EU has to be able to have more autonomous decisions. In the last part, Stubb mentioned the three megatrends we can expect in the future: technology, climate change and demographics. Even though he has a saying: “we have a tendency to over rationalize the past, overdramatize the present, and therefore underestimate the future”, he’s a self-proclaimed optimist and concluded that human beings tend to resolve thing.

DAY 2:
Policy Debate: Is Russia Doomed? First-Hand Perspectives for Post-War Scenarios

Moderated by Anna Nalyvayko, Senior Project Officer, Martens Centre

Mikhail Kasyanov, Former Prime Minister of Russia remarked that we have now a completely different Putin than is his first years when he supported reforms and had good relations with the EU. He started to change around 2005-2006. Kasyanov concluded that Putin only pretended to be a democratically devoted leader, but in reality, he was always a KGB agent. The problem is that Putin manipulates minds: half of the population actually believes that he is right, and the Americans are responsible for everything. Kasyanov noted that Russia was never a democracy, but Putin destroyed all the foundations that have been built up. He also stated that even though the majority of Russians want the war to end, they don’t want to be defeated.

Anders Aslund, Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council and Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University thinks that Russia was never as free as in 1992, but even though intellectually it was a wonderful time, economically it was an awful time. The reformers came up with two things: the liberalization of prices and market and the pursue of privatization which ultimately led to the concentration of money to a few people. According to Aslund, 2000-2003 was the most successful reform period in Russia, but Putin had very little impact on that, it was the technocrats who did the job. And then, Putin started accumulating money. As Aslund put it: “he doesn’t care about economic growth, he cares about two things: power and money – for himself and his friends, not for the people”. Aside from the KGB background, he also emphasized Putin’s criminal background.

Kasyanov mentioned how influential the oligarchs were at the end of the 90s. Then Putin decided to eliminate it. He threatened them, and it worked. Ever since, Putin’s friends are the new oligarchs and the old oligarchs have disappeared: they might be rich people, but they don’t have influence. On the other hand, the new oligarchs have up to 50% of the Russian economy under their control. Putin controls everything through his friends. But he cares about power more than money: keeping himself in this position. Kasyanov said that the Russian democratic opposition is united in terms of understanding what’s going on, but they disagree on the future of Russia. What makes the situation even harder is that most of them are in jail, some of them are in Russia laying low, and some of them are abroad. Kasyanov insisted that not all Russians are guilty, but all Russians are responsible.

Aslund added that the opposition abroad has consolidated. He thinks that Putin has to go; Russians want destabilisation now rather than him. In case Putin goes, someone else can take over, or there can be chaos. But the worst person on stage is Putin, and at this point, anything would be better. Aslund believes that Crimea has to go back to Ukraine, and if or when that happens, Putin will be lost.

Kasyanov shared the view that any other person would be better than Putin, but he remarked that democracy won’t come immediately. He considers it’s time for the West and the Russians to take a risk, even if there’s a nuclear threat: because Putin will not press the button. Kasyanov also underlined that the success of Ukrainian operation is crucial for all changes.

Aslund pointed out that the West is more united on Russia than ever before and, that Putin has to be defeated – although, he assumes that the Kremlin should take care of it. Aslund expressed that we are in a relatively good place with the sanctions, but their impact is not radical yet, which means that the sanctions should be tightened. He also suggested that the Russian state money in Belgium should be confiscated and used for war reparations in Ukraine.

Kasyanov’s advice to the West is the following: “continue to support Ukraine on a full scale” till Ukraine’s victory. He warned us once again that even if Putin goes away, there will be a “grey period” since democracy won’t come in a few years. But he firmly believes that Russia can go through a femocratic transition.

Aslund agrees that Russia has a democratic future. He echoed Yale University Professor Tim Snyder’s view that “imperialism is popular until you’re defeated” and that the imperialist period will end in Russia with Ukraine’s victory. But opposed to Kasyanov, Aslund assumes that when the process starts, it will happen fast.

Panel 3: Lost, but not Forgotten – Education, Innovation and Competitiveness for Europe
Moderated by Tomi Huhtanen, Executive Director, Martens Centre

Eva Maydell, MEP of the EPP Group and Member of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy started the panel by saying that nothing is lost yet. The EU is in a challenging position in a global race today, particularly in innovation and competitiveness, but this is also some sort of a sobering up moment: we need to speed up education. Lately we were kind of going from one crisis to another, living in a “crisis mode”. The challenge is that European institutions should be able to focus on the future and plan ahead even in crises, because that is what we’re missing now. We need to think of Europe collectively, of how we want to position Europe on the world stage in five or ten years from now. If the founding fathers were able to do that, to think long term, so should we.

Anu Bradford, Professor of Law and Henry L. Moses Professor of International Law and Organizations at Columbia Law School tackled the EU’s role between the two technology superpowers, the US and China. The EU is often portrayed as a bystander who has to choose between the two. Professor Bradford argued that we are neither forced to, nor willing to do that. The Chinese state-driven way relies on censorship, surveillance and propaganda which is too oppressive, but the American market-driven way which focuses on maximizing free speech and free markets, and this way, it kind of hands over the governance to tech companies is too permissive from the EU’s point of view. Europeans did develop a third, “right-driven” model which is gaining attention, but there are concerns. Professor Bradford is worried about liberal democracy being lost in the midst of the regulatory battles over technology. It can happen if the EU and the US loses the battle to China that is able to legislate and enforce it, while the Americans cannot legislate, and Europeans have a hard time enforcing legislations. But liberal democracy can also be lost if we lose the battle to tech companies. She noted that we can still observe the Brussels effect – meaning that the legislations created by the EU influence the global standards. However, Professor Bradford warned us about the increasing techno-protectionism, and the fact that it doesn’t serve Europe well.

Peter Vesterbacka, Chairman and Co-Founder of Finest Future put it out there: even though we always talk about the US and China winning, it’s actually not true. “Everybody wants to be European” he said, meaning that people love freedom and democracy, and the opportunity to pursue happiness. Vesterbacka thinks we made the American Dream real here – but we take it for granted, so we have to get our attitude right. Another thing we could do better is education: like in Finland or Estonia. They are also the most successful regions if we take a look at the number of startups and unicorns (companies valued at over US$1 billion) per capita. So again, who is winning? Vesterbacka emphasized on attracting the talent, to make sure we have the best players. He brought a student from Finland to share her experiences. “Anna” who’s originally from Vietnam said that Finland has taught her two things: happiness – something she cannot really explain, because you have to live in Finland to understand – and freedom – something that she has not known before like this.

Professor Bradford added that you cannot have innovation without innovators, and you cannot have them without talent. She thinks we should embrace immigration more. Universities are important gateways for American labour market and over half of one billion startups in the US have an immigrant founder. Professor Bradford noted that when Trump tried to work back immigration, that could have been Europe’s chance to embrace it. Aside from the diversity, American education also includes an optimistic ambition, an energy and critical thinking, a mindset European education could use too.

Vesterbacka declared that the best school in Finland is the nearest school. He believes that investing in young people is how we make miracles. Not all of Europe is there yet, but we’ll get there, especially if we learn from the US, and we get our mindset right.

Maydell reminded us that 2023 is the Year of Skills in the EU with the aim of raising awareness and measuring what we have achieved. She would love to see Vesterbacka’s passion in the EU institutions and Member States. Her concern is the actual competitiveness, because the figures show that the Eurozone has grown little compared to the US in the past 15 years, which means we might not go in the right direction. She would like to find out how all Europe can get to that excellence that we already have in some European countries.

The panel had a poll, to which 41% of people answered that the EU should provide massive investment in research grants and funding, 34% answered that the EU needs to reform its economic model and only 24% answered that the EU should invest in primary and secondary education. Vesterbacka was amazed and said it straight: “You’re wrong” remarking once again the importance of education.

Professor Bradford insisted that the EU should focus on a regulatory agenda, but also the urgency of completing the digital single market. According to her, entrepreneurs should be allowed to fail which is not the current situation. She said talent is key, but not the only one: we need access to data, computing power or hardware and institutions that are capable of adapting AI. “We need to get on the field, we need to play the game, we need to play offence and defence and play it well.”

Maydell added that the latest digital report had striking numbers. She came up with that, because we need to see where we actually are in order to base our ideas, visions, legislative proposals and fundings in the right direction.

Vesterbacka ended the panel, highlighting Finland and Estonia as role models, where they combine education and entrepreneurship, and pay attention to teacher education which is key. “It’s going to be impossible for anybody to catch up with us, because we started years ago” he said, “we will have the biggest and densest talent pool in the world, and with the talent we’ll win and that will be us”.

You can visit the event page and watch every panel here

Interview with Irena Joveva

As a follow-up to our earlier analysis about then commissioner-to-be Marta Kos, we have conducted an interview with Slovenian Renew MEP Irena Joveva about the candidate. 1.  What do you think about Kos, her expertise and professional qualities? Marta Kos is a very...

Interview with Mika Aaltola

As a follow-up to our earlier analysis about then commissioner-to-be Henna Virkkunen, we have conducted an interview with Finnish EPP MEP Mika Aaltola, to get a more precise view about the candidate. 1. What do you think about Virkkunen, her expertise, and...

C4EPIECE 2024/13 is available

The 2024/13 edition of our newsletter titled C4EPIECE is published today. The focus of the current edition is on the evaluation of the Hungarian presidency of the Council of the European Union, similarly to previous presidencies. Additionally, we also bring You other...