The past year as Editor-in-Chief of Tähdistö has been truly rewarding. The volume of our publications has reached record numbers, and we have diversified our content in the process. After all, Europe is a continent with a wealth of stories to tell, whether through in-depth analyses or lighter essays, as our excellent editorial team has demonstrated throughout the year. Seamless collaboration with my counterpart, Gergely Kozár, has made this tenure a resounding success, further strengthened by our formalised partnership with the European magazine The New Federalist.
Now, as the year draws to a close, it also marks my transition to new responsibilities. For my final column as Editor-in-Chief of Tähdistö, I wish to reflect on the encounters, discussions, and events that have led me to view Europe through a new lens in 2024.
At the start of the year, Finland elected its 13th president, Alexander Stubb. His campaign emphasised a message that our static worldview on global power dynamics does not reflect reality. The American political scientist Francis Fukuyama’s thesis on the dominance of liberal democracy was challenged more openly and extensively than we are accustomed to in Finland. President Stubb’s views are not entirely new, but they gained significant legitimacy under his leadership, steering public discourse towards a more realistic and informed direction.
International trade and interdependencies have become focal points in this dialogue. Once seen as a pathway to a conflict-free, tightly interconnected world, such dependencies are now recognised as potential weapons in economic warfare, as evidenced by the chain of events sparked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Risky trade relationships have become a topic of concern across Europe, from the Czech Republic to the Netherlands, Norway, and Italy – diverse countries I had the opportunity to visit this past year.
These discussions have also highlighted concerns about Europe’s competitiveness. Even those uninterested in economic matters should take note: money is power, and power attracts all manner of ideologies. The European mindset has long been guided by values of humanity, care, and well-being – ideals not universally shared elsewhere in the world. Preserving these principles is possible only if Europe is sovereign and competitive, capable of acting and influencing with initiative. Perhaps the most significant contribution to this discourse was the report by Italy’s former Prime Minister Mario Draghi, which we covered comprehensively in Tähdistö.
The keen interest and palpable tension surrounding the U.S. presidential elections reveal that Europe, even in 2024, does not yet stand firmly on its own feet. While the United States remains our most important ally, as France’s Minister for Europe, Benjamin Haddad, aptly remarked, ‘we cannot leave the security of Europe in the hands of voters in Wisconsin every four years’. I had hoped that the European Parliament elections in the summer would have attracted equal interest. In this “super year of elections,” it is, of course, understandable that many of us feel overwhelmed by the sheer volume of political developments – holding elections in 40 countries within a single year is unprecedented. However, the EU is Europe’s most viable channel for global influence, making these elections especially crucial, even more so amidst a heightened security climate.
The EU’s authority in foreign and security policy has been a topic of debate since I first became interested in European politics as a high school student. Now, it is perhaps more relevant than ever. The issue is complex, shaped by factors such as the principle of subsidiarity and the historical, cultural, and geographical diversity of EU member states. Finding a unified voice is difficult, but without one, the EU lacks credibility in foreign policy.
The most pressing question is undoubtedly the unanimity principle – or more precisely, whether it should be abandoned in foreign and security policy decision-making. Attempts to sidestep this issue have included focusing on initiatives like strengthening Europe’s defence industry, a topic I discussed as a panellist at the Road to European Elections seminar in Helsinki this March. There was, however, a quiet yet resolute consensus that unanimity is a bottleneck for foreign and security policy. For example, the EU’s rapid response forces have never been mobilised, largely due to this principle. Even significant investments or reforms will ultimately be ineffective without decision-making authority.
This is not a direct argument for or against the principle but rather a call for a pragmatic approach to the issue. Quick fixes and wishful thinking rarely lead to good, sustainable decisions. We must first articulate what we expect from foreign and security policy to honestly explore different options. The message from the United States is crystal clear: NATO or not, EU countries must be able to defend themselves if necessary. Support for Ukraine, too, should not overly rely on the U.S.
The devastating floods in Spain at the end of the year have further underscored the need to view climate and environmental policy as integral to Europe’s – and humanity’s – overall resilience. The recently concluded COP29 climate summit in Baku sparked heated debates about the scale and sources of climate action funding. Numerous groups, including young activists, called for more substantial investments in climate measures and greater accountability from the wealthiest nations, historically the largest emitters. At the same time, significant doubts have emerged regarding the transparency and effectiveness of climate finance. Oxfam’s autumn report raised concerns about the World Bank’s climate finance practices, presenting compelling evidence of shortcomings that could leave tens of billions of dollars unaccounted for. There is clearly much room for improvement in the financial structures supporting climate action. In Europe, the CSRD Directive and ESRS standards are set to play an increasingly important role, providing a legal foundation for sustainability reporting. It remains to be seen how this regulation will impact Europe’s competitive landscape, especially given the exodus of start-ups to less regulated environments. Similar concerns have been raised about the EU’s AI regulation: will the EU overregulate itself out of competition, or is the so-called AI Act merely a necessary framework for businesses, as officials and politicians suggest?
The year 2024 has been marked by transformative events and the hopes, fears, and expectations they evoke. At the Future of International Politics forum in November, I was asked whether the international rules-based order is gone and whether a third world war has already begun. These are not questions with straightforward answers. Societies have long predicted apocalyptic scenarios, yet here we still are. Returning to Fukuyama, it must be said, however, that history has not ended with the triumphant victory of liberal democracy. The so-called BRICS bloc and its allies are challenging the global West economically and politically. While Europe must remain steadfast in its principles, achieving complete independence is unrealistic. The EU must therefore continue to forge and maintain partnerships, keeping current realities in mind.
Maintaining dialogue is also one of the best ways to prevent a large-scale war. Before the First World War, complex and intersecting alliances combined with weak diplomatic communication led to catastrophic consequences. While history never repeats itself exactly, it would be foolish and irresponsible not to learn from it – as surely every war victim would agree. Labels like “world war” are tools used to retroactively categorise events. We must not exaggerate the situation prematurely, but neither should we let wishful thinking blind us. Those who first heard the gunshots in Sarajevo likely didn’t imagine the outbreak of a world war either.
The era of easy decisions is over, and Europeans must learn to choose the least harmful options among imperfect alternatives. But how? Now is the time to examine those much-discussed European values – freedom, democracy, the rule of law, equality, human rights, and human dignity – and, most importantly, their origins. In September, I wrote about how the European identity risks becoming meaningless, built on hollow slogans and superficial products. Without deeper engagement with the legacy of Roman legal system, Christianity, and Enlightenment philosophy, our understanding of Europe and European-ness is wholly insufficient. How can we protect something we do not truly understand?
No successful global power has been sustained by easy decisions, and we must not delude ourselves otherwise. Europe and European identity have been shaped by extraordinarily difficult historical events, as is true for every continent’s past. We cannot imagine ourselves above realpolitik for even a moment. However, we must do everything in our power to avoid situations where acting morally becomes impossible. For that, we need initiative, ambition, and unwavering faith in Europe.
A heartfelt thank you to Tähdistö for the wonderful years I’ve spent first as a journalist and then as Editor-in-Chief. There has been plenty to learn, reflect on, and write about, and I sincerely hope that Tähdistö will continue to be a visible and vocal part of the European conversation for years to come.
Follow the comments:
|
