On BREXIT, to borrow liberally from Winston Churchill: "Never in the field of foreign policy has so much been written, by so many, to so few." At least in the U.S., with the Donald and Hillary shows dominating, few readers here have likely focused on the implications of BREXIT beyond the obvious equity, debt, and currency market gyrations.
Despite the headline focus on economics, the major implications of a UK exit from the EU are strategic; if the referendum in fact is endorsed by Britain’s Parliament and the UK starts the formal process of exiting, the winner will be Vladimir Putin. He wasn't the agent of mischief; deeply felt unease by the British public over a "loss of sovereignty," driven by the refugee tragedy, was the main driver -- as was the growing frustration with the sclerosis of EU institutions.
- In the grand, six-decade sweep of European integration that began in the early fifties with the “Coal and Steel Community,” the principal attractiveness had been economic: lower tariffs, a customs union, a functioning “common market.” These benefits were palpable; confined to the economic and business spheres, deeper integration largely flew below member countries’ political radars.
- But as the integration efforts moved increasingly into the political sphere (symbolized by the Maastrich Treaty in 1993), nations’ political antennas were raised. Unease with supra-national authorities grew rapidly as EU institutions -- a Parliament in Strasbourg, a Court in Luxembourg, a Council and Commission in Brussels, a Central Bank in Frankfurt -- acquired bureaucratic heft
- As the EU institutional structure grew, so did the perception of intrusiveness into “existential” issues of national sovereignty; economic benefits of integration quickly became subordinate to sovereignty concerns in the political debate, dramatically highlighted by the BREXIT vote. Expect this priority reversal to continue throughout the European continent; it is a major inflection point in European politics, and it has led one respected analyst to opine that we are seeing “the end of an era in which ‘better off’ dominated ‘who we are’.”
Into this European political storm stepped Vladimir Putin. Always sensitive to political trends to his west, Putin’s information organs used every available media outlet in the UK to trumpet the benefits of "BREXIT." On the margins, it may have made a difference. The impact was at least equaled by President Obama's remark about the UK “being at the back of the queue” in future trade talks, should BREXIT occur; this surely didn't help the "Bremain" camp.
- Putin is hardly a master strategist; if he were a grad student, one might conclude that he was majoring in "opportunism," with a minor in strategy. Putin saw opportunities in Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, and he took them; he now sees an historic opportunity in Europe, to help accelerate a process of disintegration -- a Soviet and Russian goal since Stalin's rule. And the more Euro-skeptic politicians drive the debate in countries like The Netherlands and France, the more Putin will try to enhance their legitimacy.
There is an event concluding this weekend, however, that can help turn the BREXIT misfortune into a leadership moment: the NATO summit in Warsaw. The summit theme is "strengthening deterrence;" given Russian provocations over the last year, in the Baltic region especially, it couldn't more timely.
- Even more timely would be an assertion of careful and respectful U.S. leadership -- at the Warsaw summit and in the months ahead. Early reports from Warsaw suggest that the president is seizing the moment, with a strong reassertion to European media of the strategic importance of our transatlantic relationship. With his usual poignancy, Henry Kissinger emphasized the stakes: "A disintegrating Europe could subside into an impotent passivity that will shrivel the entire Atlantic partnership, which represents one of the greatest achievements of the past century."