If it had not been clear before, the global catastrophe of World War II manifested that no single European nation would be a dominant global power in the decades to come. Although once mighty colonial England and the proud French had won the war, their global dominance was predestined to further wane not to mention the defeated block of Germans, Italians, and Austrians. The world has seen the rise and demise of the Soviet Union in the second half of the last century and recently the final “emerging” of developing nations with China in the vanguard. Europe has mended its wounds since and it has united – or at least tried to do so.
Having come a long way from a conflict torn continent, Europe’s top politicians were convinced their turn on the world stage would come. Now it seems they are running out of time. The most recent push in terms of the Lisbon treaty has been an uneasy compromise partly lacking democratic foundation. The exhausting process has revealed clearly what Europe’s top officials were so reluctant to acknowledge: Europe has been too slow, too occupied with itself and the vision of a single voiced Europe remains elusive. This understanding has been painful for Europe’s political elite. Where does Europe go from here? Where can it go?
Well, the question should rather be where does it want to go. While people identifying themselves as European are primarily found among the younger generations, the idea of Europe is hard to grasp. Nevertheless, there is one unifying element: The almost complete lack of imperial ambition in people’s ideas about Europe. Maybe this results from the virtual inexistence of European armed forces or the relatively early stage of forming a European identity. Supporting the view that geo-political influence is not a top-priority are the developments in important individual member states. Germany’s attitude towards the Afghanistan war and the ongoing discussion on whether its troops are on a combat mission or merely acting as peace keepers shows it has no intention of getting anywhere close to its troublesome past. Even in the formerly more war-prone UK the public has become increasingly wary of its nation's involvement in the both Iraq and Afghanistan. Intellectuals have always understood that political influence comes at a price they seldom had to pay themselves. With mass media covering every detail of armed conflicts the wider public is understanding this as well. The waning opportunity of installing Europe as a heavy-weight in global politics is difficult to accept for politicians seeking ever more power and influence. It might bother citizens much less if at all.
From a western European perspective security concerns in the eastern states of the Union are sometimes easily put aside. The persistent fears result from historical experiences and are mostly based on suspicion when it comes to Russian foreign politics. However, an imminent threat for any country being already a member of the EU seems insubstantial and can, in the worst case, be resolved within the NATO framework. The point is that both the willingness and the opportunity costs of not investing resources in expanding political influence are low. Even if the latter statement might not be left unchallenged, there is plenty of evidence that Europe will most likely fail in attempting to increase its geo-political clout. The conflict on the lack of fiscal discipline in some of Europe’s more peripheral economies and the resulting internal power struggles are just another indicator. In addition, it might be a futile attempt to deepen Europe’s integration without voters’ consent, making it quite likely that Europe will not manage to be on a par with the U.S. and China any time soon.
So the world is indeed steering towards something like the “G2” that is to speak a world dominated by the U.S. and China. This is bad news for Europe’s favored political approach of multilateralism. Fortunately, a bipolar world dominated by China and the U.S. will be much different from the one with the Soviet Union as an antagonist. The main actors will not be as powerful and the lines not be as clear cut, leaving plenty of space for multilateralism. Europe has mastered multilateralism unlike any other union of sovereign states in history. Imperfect and at times chaotic the European Union may be, yet its achievements in bringing together different values, cultures, and languages are unprecedented. Being the mediator and a buffer between different powers might be the most fitting role for Europe.
If Europeans choose to focus on applying such a soft power profile it might not be maximising economic growth expressed in the form of its traditional measure, the GDP. This is exactly where most critics of such a relative withdrawal from power politics will point at. Europe will lose some ground in securing natural resources and political leverage in trade matters. The old continent might be willing to pay that price and actually fare better by doing so. GDP as the long uncontested sole measure of prosperity is about to be seriously questioned. Recent comments by the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, show that the ideas of measuring prosperity as Gross National Happiness (GNH) or similar are not merely intellectual constructs, but have made their way into the highest political circles. Applying such alternative measures of growth and development will give European-style soft power a further competitive edge and make it welfare maximizing. Moreover, shifting attention towards a broader measure of prosperity makes Europe’s decline in world politics one of choice not necessity.
Europe will in fact have little choice other than accepting its future regression of geo-political importance. It can try to prevent its faith as long as possible, but such efforts will most likely be in vain. Instead, the old continent can embrace its role as a bloc in relative decline and concentrate its resources on what it is best at. Europe will possibly be happier and more prosperous place in the days to come albeit a less powerful one.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment