Claudi Pérez: "The barbarians are inside. Now we have them in our pocket"

BarcelonaThe journalist Claudi Pérez, international correspondent for El País, publishes the book Las invasiones bárbaras, a mix between an essay and journalistic chronicle about the crises that have shaken the world during the first quarter of this century, with a special focus on Europe and its role in the new international order.

Who are the barbarians?

— There is a poem by Kavafis that says "we went to the border to look for the barbarians and they were not there". The barbarians are inside. Now we have them in our pocket. They are the technology oligarchs, who have laid out the red carpet for populisms, starting with Trump and continuing with half a dozen prime ministers and heads of state who sit on the European Council. Now, it is also very curious that even the leftists are starting to believe in walls, for example with a Danish prime minister who seems like a right-wing social democrat. These are also barbarians.

You speak of populists and techno-oligarchs. Who has empowered whom? Or have they fed off each other at the same time?

— Yes, I think they are communicating vessels. Populism is not new; we should be very prepared, but we are not. We are still suffering the consequences of the crisis of our lifetime, the great recession of 2008, which has generated great difficulties and impressive discomfort. There is a double intertwined cause: the material conditions of life and people's anger. The anger is partly economic, but it also has other causes. It is because globalization and technology leave them behind or because they want to be the only Catholic white people in the square... and all these things together have led us to populisms.

You warn that we may now be facing another financial crisis, this time linked to cryptos.

— Libertarians have managed to capture the establishment to deregulate. The subprime problem was deregulation, and now we are the same. They say economic memory lasts ten years. Fifteen years have now passed. In the United States they are deregulating and in Brussels too, with technological regulations and environmental regulations, under great pressure from Donald Trump.

You criticize that Europe doesn't know how to do politics and you say it should take a step forward to "sit at the table of the great ones". How?

— We are very well equipped for the world we have left behind, a world of soft power, of liberal democracy and economic openness. But now we are in a world of cannibal politics, of very hard power. To sit at the table of the great powers, you must have deterrence, you must invest in defense. And you must recognize that your long-time ally, the American defense umbrella, is disappearing.

Do you criticize Ursula von der Leyen's leadership?

— I believe he had a fantastic first term, with a very good response to the pandemic. He also put the green agenda and the economic agenda on the table, but now he is dismantling them. And all the taboos of German politics are becoming apparent. For example with Gaza. Also with this policy of appeasement with Donald Trump, which I think is disastrous and has ended up being a happy vassalage.

What should be the alternative to appeasement?

— I believe that Europe has many weapons, but it must believe in them a little. First, it must invest in defense. Perhaps not the 5% of GDP that Trump asks for, and perhaps not by buying the F-18s from the United States, but it needs deterrent power. And second, it must make the most of the market we have, of 450 million consumers, with brutal power. But Europe finds itself with the problem that it used to have large companies in cutting-edge sectors and now it doesn't.

Notes that one of the EU's problems are the decision-making mechanisms, especially unanimity.

— This is clearly one of the keys. Unanimity and the veto system must end. What happens is that small countries do not want this in any way, because it is their way of influencing. But the economic policy would also have to change. We have a stability pact that was made for a world that has disappeared. We will not have 2% growth in Europe, and we have a debt of 90%. They ask us for things in Brussels that, frankly, we cannot fulfill, because we have to invest a lot, because we also have to invest in defense now, because we have the welfare we want to continue to have, and all this costs a lot of money. When a crisis comes, what the stability pact asks us to do is cut back. In a crisis, the opposite must be done, we must invest. This is where I ask for politicians who know how to implement counter-cyclical policies, that go against the cycle. And in Europe it has been too pro-cyclical, which is another way of saying idiotic.

Parties that opt more for the reinforcement of the nation-state than for Europeanism are gaining power. Does it seem like we are going in the opposite direction to what you prescribe to eliminate the Veto-cracy?

— We had Darth Vader in the European Council, who was Viktor Orbán. But we'll see, if we go in the opposite direction. For example, Denmark is one of the most Eurosceptic countries, and what happened when Trump targeted Greenland? The Danes have become the most pro-European. Sometimes, a good enemy unites a lot.

Copy the discourse of populisms: identify an enemy and exploit unity against them.

— Yes, uniting against the enemy is a very populist phrase. But I think it's an opportunity to do something different, now that we see very clearly that the historical elite turns its back on us. This is where the European leadership must be asked to take a step forward. This is where I see a gap in Von der Leyen. Furthermore, whenever the Franco-German axis is affected, as it is now, Europe suffers.

In Brussels they talk a lot about strategic autonomy, but a few days ago we had an example of political disagreement that ended with the cancellation of the joint combat aircraft project.

— The failure of the European fighter jet is a perfect example to explain why a common defense policy cannot be made: due to national taboos. Defense is one of them. And behind defense lies the defense industry. The Germans and the French are very nationalistic and always have national interests at the forefront, and this has been seen very clearly here. There were sensational speeches by Merkel and Macron when they signed the agreement to make the fighter jet. But now the problem has arrived. This is when we have to grow up: enough speeches and get to work.