We are now in a very strange moment. Are we blocked in the third step of regional integration, of post-war regional integration? After traditional regionalism, neoregionalism we are now blocked when neoregionalism doesn’t work as it was expected and traditional regionalism is more and more faddy. We can say that we meet a real crisis of regional integration and this crisis is not only affected Europe. Of course Europe is more affected than all the other parts of the world because Europe was really bearing this new regional project and was in the first time the motor of this regional integration, an example for all the world. But all the regional items are now questioned. In one hand it’s questioned through main kind of crises that we will take into account together; on the other hand, regionalism is now overcome by transregionalism and by this new vision by which is much more important to cooperate when countries share the same visions, even if they are not neighbors than among neighboring countries which are not sharing the same values and the same targets. This crisis of the regional order and regional integration is first of all a conceptual crisis. Now there is a kind of anarchy about regionalism as we are observing in the world different kinds of regional integration which are not similar but which are oriented toward different perspectives. For instance by now in the present world we can observe traditional interstate cooperation through for instance continental integration. This integration is not very deep, is not very important, it’s much more an intergovernmental cooperation. It’s the case for instance with the organization of American states or with the African Union, or the Arab League, it’s only a political cooperation and a limited cooperation which is not really threatening the national sovereignties. The second one is a little bit different. That’s to say interstate cooperation with precise economic target. That’s to say no political integration but the willing to promote an economic integration which is mainly based on trade and intra-zone trade. It’s the case for instance of SADC, which is growing among the Southern countries of Africa. It’s also the case of NAFTA in Northern America. It’s the case of the SAARC in South Asia. All these organizations are promoting this economic cooperation without really being concerned by political cooperation and specially political integration. The third one is an inter-state cooperation which is based on economy but which is targeting the spillover of economy to politics. This is the case of European Union, which started with economic cooperation and which is promoting more and more a political cooperation, with the idea that this economic cooperation as it is more and more intensified will spillover economics to politics. And it’s also the case of many regional cooperation in Latin and in South America. And we have also a fourth category, which is quite different from all the others, which is called openregionalism, which is not organized through institutions, which does not target overcoming national sovereignty, but which is protecting national sovereignty, but which is promoting an active but a free cooperation, bilateral cooperation inside the arena. It’s for instance the case for APEC. It’s very difficult now to define how these four models are able to coexist when they are competing, but it’s also very difficult to say which one is the winner. The first one is an old-fashion one and probably not able to develop now in the global world, but it’s not quite clear that the three others are really efficient. And this is my second point: beyond the conceptual crisis, a real political and social crisis, which is dramatically affecting the regional integration process. Ladies and Gentlemen, I think that regional integration is now in crisis everywhere around the world, and I will discriminate between three dimensions of this crisis. The first one is an institutional crisis. Regional institutions don’t work anymore, everywhere around the world. The second crisis is an economic crisis, that’s to say all these regional organizations are no more able to deal with the present economic crisis. And the third one is a kind of rebirth of nationalism, what I would call a neo-nationalism, which is probably collapsing, which is attacking the heart of the process of regional integration. First one, we observe everywhere around the world a kind of failure of the regional institutions, this is particularly important in Europe. You remember that Europe invested on its institutions rather than Asian countries which were much more promoting their own integration through economic and social dynamic. But Europe is probably trapped by its institutional culture. European Union tries to promote new institutions, new treaties are succeeding but are not successful. Many of these new institutions were even rejected by the people sovereignty when they voted through referendum, like it was the case in France. And this is triggering in Europe a lack of confidence among people, that’s to say a gap, bigger and bigger gap between societies, European societies and institutions. Now European institutions are more and more working for themselves, for their own agents, for their own actors. And so this gap is dangerously blocking the process of regional integration. This gap between social and politics is probably the worst pathology in political development. The second crisis now is affecting economies. You remember that European Union was created for reaching economic targets and for reconstructing the old continent. Now, as Europe is meeting this very strong crisis, which started around 2007-2008, we observe that Europe is no more able to face this crisis, for a very simple reason which is very important in my mind is that European integration was considered as a kind of stake holding, that’s to say addition of interests. When the context is good, when the situation is positive, this stake holding is working and is working positively, but when the crisis is strong, stake holding is not working and must be replaced by a real sharing. But sharing implies to question national sovereignty, and now Europe is confronted to this opposition between stake holding and sharing. A stake holding, which is promoted by national sovereignties, competing national sovereignties and sharing which implies a kind of solidarity, which would overcome national sovereignties. And the third level of this crisis must be found in this new nationalism which is now growing in all the European countries. In a recent poll made by Eurobarometer in May 2014, 59% of European people don’t trust in Europe. And they are 81% in Greece precisely where the economic crisis is severe, and they are 67% in Spain and even in Germany 59%. And that’s why this gap between public opinion and European institutions creates a kind of new coming back to nations and which is fueling this free riding strategy among the European governments which are playing their own cards, more and more. And this is also resulting in a new sovereignism in which regional integration is no more conceived as a solution, but is more and more built up as a kind of scape-goat for taking into account all the failures and difficulties met by people and public opinion. Ladies and Gentlemen, we don’t know how the future is made, but we are now in a crucial moment: either people in the world are able to invent a new kind of regional integration and they will overcome this crisis, or they are not able to do that, and people will escape either to this trans regionalism that I mentioned or to a new nationalism, which is probably the main threat of the world, because there is no compatibility between national sovereignty and a global order. It’s exactly what we will take into account in the next lecture.
