Sun Keqin: The steering wheel for the EU to move forward should be stabilized

Looking at the multipolar world, as a successful example of regional organizations, the European Union is considered one of the top three "great powers" in terms of its economic output and international influence. However, although the world retains some respect for the European Union today, what catches the eye is still the image of a "declining aristocrat" with energy shortages, unsustainable social welfare, weak economic growth, high prices, and weak response to climate change. There is no lack of thinking within the EU about this. Some people describe it as a self driving bus: the people in the car have already seen the cliff ahead, and the discussion is getting louder, but they are still asking each other who should hold the steering wheel. This raises a current issue in Europe, which is the 'empty talk governance' where there are people in charge but no one is responsible.

Looking at the problems exposed by the EU in its development process, they are indeed increasing. With the eastward expansion of the European Union in 2004, the gap between Eastern Europe and the old capitalist Western European countries continued to shift into a struggle for interests, and the internal divide between the East, West, North, and South within the EU deepened. The 2009 sovereign debt crisis dealt a heavy blow to the European economy and exposed structural flaws in European governance. European countries that continue to be impacted by the refugee crisis also face enormous pressure from the rise of right-wing populism. Then came the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which opened the curtain of strategic confrontation between Europe and Russia. The traditional energy and economic ties were cut off, and the defense pressure soared. Faced with multiple crises, Europe is facing continuous rain, and what is even more difficult is the transformation of its main ally, the "backing" of the United States. Europe has been directly exposed to the scars of 'decline' and continues to be under pressure on issues such as tariffs, Greenland, and NATO defense alliances. At the same time, developing countries represented by the BRICS countries are rapidly rising, and there is a historic shift in North South power. While the EU is striving to cope with geopolitical competition among major powers, its conservative technology and industrial policies are directly impacted by the accelerated development of new technological revolutions such as artificial intelligence, deconstructing many traditional industrial advantages in Europe.

Europeans are very anxious about this, and governments and think tanks around the world are searching for reasons and solutions. But due to the system, Europe always turns correct discussions into delayed actions, or in other words, reports are presented one by one without clear responsible persons. The institutional inertia of maintaining "rules" and "principles" has enabled the EU to take some measures on the surface, but overall it has not been able to break free from the quagmire of internal and external difficulties, and stumbling forward is likely to be the basic trend for the future development of the EU. Especially in today's rapidly developing technology such as artificial intelligence, some people are concerned that when Europe is at a disadvantage in energy, chips, and basic models, its technological capabilities, defense capabilities, and economic prosperity may all lose their pivot in the coming years.

From a deeper perspective, the EU has never had a clear positioning in terms of strategic goals or development direction. Although most people in Europe are no longer entangled in the concepts of "federation" or "confederation", "modernity" or "postmodernism", and recognize the governance structure of "multi speed Europe" and "differentiated integration", there is still no accurate positioning, and they can only confess that they are exploring a path of "postmodern state" governance. The lack of clear strategic objectives has forced the EU to constantly seek balance between EU institutions, member state governments, local governments, and interest groups, and to handle internal and external affairs in a multi-layered governance. However, the excessive number of member states and the existence of interest games and development gaps further limit Europe's ability to make rapid decisions and compete effectively in improving its own competitiveness.

Another important issue is that the EU is still choosing some strategically wrong policies. For example, the European Union is adopting increasingly stringent trade protectionism measures, even unilaterally introducing multiple trade tools and implementing discriminatory restrictions on trading partners. Such practices that violate market laws and principles of fairness not only harm the interests of foreign companies, but also backfire and do not help them enhance their competitiveness.

The solution to current problems in Europe is not without foundation. The public has become accustomed to the reality of multi-level governance in the EU, and maintaining EU unity and reforming it remains the mainstream opinion of the European people. The huge market size, profound industrial foundation, excellent technological talents, and globally competitive companies in Europe are also the confidence for its progress. The key is to choose the right path.

In short, European integration has no turning back and can only move forward with a heavy burden. To achieve this, the EU must establish strategic autonomy, continuously adjust its governance structure, and implement it. Only in this way can it find a stable path of development and continue to explore a path of "postmodern state" governance.