The EU Green Deal: A chance for opening up Europe’s hidden integration?

2021 the European Year of Rail

‘Setting up a coherent and functional network across all Europe is an exercise in political cohesion. The European Year of Rail is not a random event. It comes at an appropriate time, when the EU needs this kind of collective undertaking’

 the Commissioner for Transport Adina Vălean said on March 4, while proposing the European Year of Rail. Europe’s physical integration by means of a single European rail area would not only promote the continuity and safety of international transport but would above all contribute significantly to a more sustainable economy. 

Indeed, accelerating the shift to sustainable and smart mobility is a key element of the European Green Deal, as proposed by the European Commission and approved by the European Parliament in January 2020. Transport accounts for a quarter of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, railways (and waterways) as opposed to roads and air, are considerably more environmentally friendly and energy-efficient transport modes. Therefore, increasing the attractiveness of railways might accelerate the reduction in transport emissions. The Commission aims at a shift of ‘a substantial part of the 75% of inland freight carried today by road’ onto rail and inland waterways. This shift demands large organisational and technological measures and regulations.

One of the most important measures will be, the harmonisation of the at least fifteen different signalling and speed control systems that regulate railway traffic in the member states today. The European Year of Rail seeks to promote public support for the rules and measures that will need to be implemented in the near future. But, it goes without saying that rulemaking and European integration has a long history to draw from.

Source: European Commission, Energy and Transport DG, ERTMS – Delivering flexible and reliable rail traffic. A major industrial project for Europe (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006) 2.

Technocratic Internationalism

In Writing the Rules for Europe, Wolfram Kaiser and Johan Schot provide fresh insights into the history and nature of European integration in the past 150 years. Interestingly, they refrain from focusing on the famous EU founding fathers, such as the Monnet's and the Schumans. Instead, they zoom in on technical experts, of whom we’ve hardly heard of, but who played a major role in determining the rules and standards – also called governing structures - to facilitate international transfer of people, goods, information or even pollution. Experts thus, they recognise, were the motor behind Europe’s “hidden integration” in the longer run. Kaiser and Schot argue that the technocratic way experts frame(d) and manage(d) international relations – also coined technocratic internationalism - has been adopted by the EU and its preceding organisations since the 1950s.

Expert-communities can, due to their monopoly on knowledge, have, a large impact on the international stage. They can set the agenda, apply peer pressure or mediate between states and thereby help defining and creating transnational regimes within their field of expertise. Not seldomly, they are presented or present themselves as rational alternatives to politicians. Politicians, the argument goes, are incapable of promoting the common good, since they are too much concerned with maintaining power and promoting the national self-interest. Experts, on the other hand, excel in rational policy-making and their search for consensus around ‘optimal’ solutions. Statesmen, as well as IR scholars, suggested that the technocratic approach might be a superior form of conducting International Relations. 

A historically significant example of how technocratic internationalism works is the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine (CCNR). In 1815 the European Powers established the CCNR with the goal to bring prosperity and security to the war-ravaged continent. The Commission, that consisted of representatives of the riparian states, was to implement the principle of freedom of navigation on the Rhine. However, the principle faced many opponents, specifically those who benefited from local privileges such as tolling stations and monopolies. 

My research shows, that in the course of the nineteenth century, and especially after a technological and democratic revolution along the river basin, the CCNR transformed from a purely diplomatic forum, into a platform that was highly informed by a Technical Commission, consisting of the seven main hydraulic engineers of the riparian states. It was this Technical Commission that was able to successfully mitigate the political tensions within the CCNR and kept the Rhine safe for navigation. On the basis of technical (rather than political) feasibility, it generated a coherent set of norms, such as rules for bridge building and norms for river stream regulation, and it constituted a platform of continuous transnational communication. Thereby it increased its potential to steering the convergence of riparian politics regarding the freedom of navigation of the Rhine. At the turn of the century, the protection of the freedom of navigation on the Rhine had been completely depoliticised, and the river had turned into one of the most prosperous ones in Europe.

Combating a Democratic Deficit

An expert community can thus contribute significantly to the creation of a transnational regime within Europe. However, as Kaiser and Schot rightly state, technocratic internationalism also comes at a price. First, there is reason to doubt the claim that technical experts work “wholly un-politically”. Experts do not work in isolation from interests, bias, ideals and political visions. Indeed, there are many examples of great engineers that embraced dictatorial or imperial leaders and their policies in search of recognition and prestige. Moreover, the non-transparent decision-making processes and the unaccountability of involved experts result in a weak democratic base for the measures and structures that are imposed.  

One of the major criticisms of the EU among European populist movements is the very technocratic nature of EU policies. Whereas railway transport might be essential in reaching the decarbonisation objectives of the Green Deal and means great advantages for some regions, others might benefit much less so. Increased traffic might result in discomfort for those living next to a railway and might draw away economic activity from the area around the former transport infrastructures. 

Either way, the European Year of Rail can be understood as a new attempt by the EU to legitimize its project. Awareness-raising campaigns such as these, that involve information sharing and debates among citizens, businesses and public authorities about the railways as a Union-wide means to combat climate change, are a first step towards support building. Perhaps making the technical experts behind the upcoming integration of the European railways more visible, opening the previously closed doors, and making the integration less hidden will contribute even more to the general support for transforming the EU into a fair and prosperous society.

About Joep Schenk: 

Joep Schenk (1983) is lecturer at the History of International Relations section at Utrecht University.  

In 2015 he defended his thesis Port barons and Ruhr tycoons. The origins of an interdependent relationship between Rotterdam and the Ruhr area 1870-1914.

Between 2015 and 2019 and within the ERC funded project 'Securing Europe, fighting its enemies 1815-1914' Schenk researched the role of the Rhine Commission in the formation of a European Security Culture in the long 19th Century. His book The Rhine and European Security in the Long Nineteenth Century. Making Lifelines from Frontlines appears shortly with Routledge.