March 14, 2008
European irrelevance
Another European Union summit has just got underway in Brussels. I used to go to a lot of these things. From the inside they can seem quite important and exciting. But as an outsider, it is often difficult to see the point.
You can say the same thing about what passes for foreign policy debate in the major European capitals. I was in Madrid last week. The outside world barely featured in the Spanish election campaign (other than in the form of illegal immigrants, mysteriously washing up on Spanish shores). Advisers to Jose Luis Zapatero, the prime minister, are proud of their man’s role in launching the “Alliance of Civilisations” - his major foreign policy initiative. But the “alliance” is a complete non-topic in the real world. (Can any readers of this blog honestly say that they they know what it is, without benefit of an internet search?)
Now I’m in Paris. Here too, the head of government has launched a major foreign policy initiative - generating much local fanfare, and very little interest anywhere else. Sarkozy’s big idea is a Mediterranean Union, attempting to create closer ties between the EU and North Africa. The French claim that the EU summit has already endorsed the idea - and they will certainly try to give it a renewed push when they take over the presidency of the EU later this year.
But read the fine print coming out of the summit, and it seems clear that the latest proposal is little more than the current EU aid programmes, re-packaged under a different name. Perhaps they will eventually create a new secretariat for the MU, somewhere sunny with a nice building and a few cushy jobs thrown in. But this is not an initiative that is going to change the world. Or even - frankly - the Med.
I am not trying to sneer at the Europeans. Well, only a bit. They can look a bit ridiculous, as they go around proposing world-changing initiatives that are greeted with polite yawns elsewhere. But irrelevance is not such a bad fate. The US is relevant alright - but it is also involved in two draining wars, and has hugely expensive security commitments all round the world.
Completely agree. But you might say that the US is engaged in two draining wars and has expensive commitments precisely because Europe has made itself irrelevant through a lack of defence spending and a focus on soft power. Quite simply the defence umbrella created by the US after WW2 has helped allow Europe its long slide into the background (there are other reasons, including demographics, but top of the pile is reliance on the US). But the European focus on soft power is wrongheaded - it didn’t help in the Balkans and it hasn’t helped anywhere else either. The sooner European leaders stop gazing at their navels, the better for all.
Posted by: AYC | March 14th, 2008 at 10:00 am | Report this commentCreating an MU is jumping the gun. Just as the European Union began life as the European Coal and Steel Community, I propose to first create a Mediterranean Tuna Community (MTC). Marseilles could be home to the Tuna Parliament, while the Tuna Commission would sit in sunny Algiers. There should also be a permanent President of the Tuna Council, someone with stature, from a country with a respectful cuisine (so Tony Blair will not do).
Posted by: RCS | March 14th, 2008 at 10:22 am | Report this commentJaw jaw is better than war war.
Posted by: MaryCunningham | March 14th, 2008 at 10:53 am | Report this commentIt is nice to note that Snr. Zapatero has taken the “Dialogue of Civilisations”, promoted by the former Iranian president, Khatami,to its next stage and is seeking an alliance among them. It maybe all talk but which one is better, talking about an Alliance of Civilisations, or calling others “Evil Empire” and “Axis of Evil”? Where does the demonisation of other people lead, if not to their attempted subjugation and annihilation?
Anyhow, what is this obsession with “relevance”? Are nations only relevant when they can deploy big armies, fight ruinous wars and shed copious amounts of blood? Were Ghengiz Khan and Atilla the Hun more relevant that the Florentines?
Why can’t the White Europeans take their place alongside other nations and civilisations (and be extremely proud of their scientific, industrial and artistic achievements), rather than wish to impose themselves on others? In the British context, I find the desire for the country to “punch above its weight”, truly distasteful. It has led to misallocation of resources on a grand scale and an actual reduction of Britain’s standing in the world, after misadventures in Iraq.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | March 14th, 2008 at 11:51 am | Report this commentDear P,
Nice words, except that the world is not as inherently peaceful as you would have it. Nations cannot simply relax under the sun and assume the goodwill of others; they can either develop their own ability to project hard power, or depend on that of others. For a grouping the size of Europe, it is a disgrace to be dependent on American military might, as well as a big constraint on Europe’s ability to pursue its own interests and shape international affairs in its own image.
Posted by: RCS | March 14th, 2008 at 12:08 pm | Report this commentHi RCS,
Europe is by means militarily weak. It is the US that spends unconsionable amounts of resources on military and is too straong.
You only need such disproportionate military strength when you want to appropriate more than your fair shareof resources or steal other peole’s land and water
I’m flying off early for the weekend.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | March 14th, 2008 at 12:22 pm | Report this commentHi P,
…or when you want deter others from stealing y o u r land and y o u r water.
Posted by: RCS | March 14th, 2008 at 12:33 pm | Report this comment…and wiping you off the map and throwing you into the sea!
Posted by: RCS | March 14th, 2008 at 12:37 pm | Report this commentRCS,
Posted by: fxtrader | March 14th, 2008 at 12:54 pm | Report this commentThis is such a mercantilist view of the world - it’s depressing.
Using military power to that end hasn’t made the world any richer, it’s just transfered wealth from one group to another.
The common interest is clearly for that to cease. Much is being said about the Chinese attempt to gain control of resources across the world. And one has reasons to worry about some of that influence. But their attitude of non-interference in politics of another country and trade is one that should arguably be lauded. The Europeans and Americans have had the habit of politicising trade and frankly haven’t been that successful away from their neighbourhood. It makes much more sense to back a countries’ institutions rather than some of its leaders. (often morally deteriorates the longer they stay in power) Whether Bush actually won Florida or not, the US decided he was president, and the rest of the world accepted that and noone keep secretly backing Gore and giving him weapons etc..
Dear fxtrader,
I agree reality is many times depressing, but hiding under the pillow will not help. I also agree the common interest is for that to cease, but any proposals for solving the Prisoners’ Dilemma?
Posted by: RCS | March 14th, 2008 at 1:05 pm | Report this comment“Much is being said about the Chinese attempt to gain control of resources across the world. And one has reasons to worry about some of that influence. But their attitude of non-interference in politics of another country and trade is one that should arguably be lauded.”
Ever hear of Tibet? Not to mention Burma? And perhaps they should be more interventionist in Sudan.
Posted by: AYC | March 14th, 2008 at 1:17 pm | Report this commentYesterday the Eurozone became in $ terms the biggest market of the World, something the European Union as a whole already was.
E.U. member states expend about $250 billion on Defense, five times more than the People´s Republic of China.
I don´t ve any interest in expending European money and European lifes to defend American interests as we are doing already in Afghanistan.
Expending billions of euros to be under an American Commander like Sepoy troops without dignity and without Sovereignty…no way, we don´t accept that.
Posted by: Enrique | March 14th, 2008 at 1:20 pm | Report this comment“E.U. member states expend about $250 billion on Defense, five times more than the People´s Republic of China.” Much of it duplicated so that figure doesn’t mean much - and in reality nor does the Chinese figure.
Posted by: AYC | March 14th, 2008 at 1:44 pm | Report this commentAs far as I can see, we are defending our own interests in Afghanistan. The recent terrorist attacks in EUROPE were directed from Afghanistan / Pakistan: Madrid, London, Glasgow, etc. How does that work out to be US interests? How do the Balkans work out to be US interests, except because of the potential damage to Europe? The fact that Europe is incapable of projecting its power does make it irrelevant. It’s time our lords and masters in Brussels recognised this instead of spending their time sucking up ever more powers from the nation states - that’s the only loss of sovereignty I’m concerned about. And by the way, as a European, I do support working closely with our US allies.
When all you have is a hammer you go around the world looking for a nail. (Can’t attribute but I think it was Rob’t Kagan?)
Yet, there are more types of power than military: economic and moral to name two. Inappropriate use of America’s military prowress has greatly diminished its moral legitimacy. Is it net better off?
Posted by: MaryCunningham | March 14th, 2008 at 3:05 pm | Report this commentAYC: The Eurozone economy is not larger than the American economy in terms of purchasing power parity.
Posted by: Chaz | March 14th, 2008 at 4:06 pm | Report this commentIn Cool Britannia, it is distinctly uncool to want to change the world. You guys would much rather just sit back, not draw any attention to yourselves, and poke fun at anyone else who’s willing to make an effort.
You may dismiss various initiatives, claiming they are not going to change the world. But what you fail to realise is that if you don’t even try, you’re definitely not going to change anything. Unless, of course, you’re secretly trying to set up training bases in Afghanistan…
Posted by: RR | March 14th, 2008 at 4:07 pm | Report this commentSorry, to clarify, that was addressed to Mr GR’s post and not the thread above (which has taken on a life of its own).
Posted by: RR | March 14th, 2008 at 4:09 pm | Report this commentGR [EU/US]”But irrelevance is not such a bad fate.”
True…but perhaps not so true when Russia, China and India, and even Iran and Central Asia are doing everthing they can to NOT be irrelevant…
getting back to the EU…it appears content just to see itself as a free tade zone rather than taking any leadership role militrarily or as a serious political/policy making entity…no one country dominates, and this silly system of the rotation every 6 months which will at least be remedied at some point…maybe then you will see a change…On Sarkozy…what can you say: but WHAT A DISAPPOINTMENT! Of all the EU countries at the moment I think Poland is the most interesting to watch..
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 14th, 2008 at 4:25 pm | Report this commentWell, it is not the Euro that has halved against the dollar; it is not the Eurozone that is no longer the first choice of foreign graduate students; it is not the US that was able to persuade Turkey to abolish capital punishment, it was the EU. (In fact, the US was not even able to persuade Turkey to give its military–its vaunted military–access across Turkey.) 160,000 European soldiers are not posted in Iraq seemingly for the next 100 years. EU standards are regularly accepted as the benchmarks for internationally traded manufactured goods.
I would say what little power the EU has it is using very well. It is still an economic giant and political pygmy on the world scene, but it is early days for the entity.
Posted by: MaryCunningham | March 14th, 2008 at 4:34 pm | Report this commentZapatero’s initiative is not getting much attention in Europe and the USA, but it is getting a lot more attention in Turkey, Egypt and Iran. This is very good for Spain… even an insurance policy. Before Aznar, Spain traditionally had privileged relations with the Muslim world and Moratinos is slowly putting that back together again. This warming relationship could be of great value for Spain and for Spain’s allies in the not to distant future.
As to European power. I am always reminded of a joke by a wonderful comedian named George Gobel, which I will bing up to date:
“In my house, I make the important decisions and my wife makes the unimportant decisions: she decides where we live, where the kids go to school, what clothes we wear, what we eat etc. I make the important decisions, like should we invade Iraq.”
Th European Union is like George Gobel’s wife.
Posted by: David Seaton | March 14th, 2008 at 8:54 pm | Report this commentEuropean power could be summed up by a phrase by a legendary 19th century, Spanish politician, the Count of Romanones, “Let others write the laws, just leave me to write the regulations.”
Most of mediterranian countries know about the “Alliance of Civilisations”; of course and unfortunetely they know it less than the daily deaths in Irak…
Spain fought during centuries against muslims, firstly inside Iberia and then in the Mediterranian (see Lepanto battle), so it´s the older european state who knows how to deal with muslims.
Even if you assume, as we use to do, that Western countries (judeo-christian) are more “civilised” than muslims; do not ever pretend to persuade muslims to act peacefully, if you make them know that view through an indiscriminate War (for instance)…
That´s not a during solution, the classic “if you want peace prepare the war” applied in this case for western and muslim countries, must be changed by “if you spread peace, social and economic development… you´ll avoid war”; Spain,France and others propose new roads, but after the bolted Iraqi war shame, UKUSA and their media still seem switched off of the common sense of loving peace.
Posted by: david domenhiod | March 15th, 2008 at 1:13 am | Report this commentalliance of civilisations is anti-terrorism or anti-war alliance, meanwhile it is the justification for starting the war to any “anti-civilisation” states.
Posted by: Eric | March 15th, 2008 at 1:26 am | Report this commentWhen Europe speaks in one voice it is relevant.
In the WTO for example the EU is the biggest player.
The irrelevance of the EU in many fields is not due to the use of soft power but to the lack of a common strong position.
Posted by: Oscar D | March 15th, 2008 at 7:03 pm | Report this commentI do not share the “European irrelevance” opinion at all. First, on the global level EU represents a great socio-political vision made true: neighbouring countries cooperating and pursuing common interests to the benefit of the citizens.
Second, on the regional level EU promotes socio-economic development around its borders, to the mutual benefit of the EU and its neighbours. The 12 new members since 2004 are living proof.
I agree however that EU should sometimes act more decisevely and show teeth. I hope EU and its members will learn to better and faster recognise cases where such assertiveness is necessary.
However, I believe that the EU irrelevance promoting ideas of socio-economic development, cooperation, mutual respect and understanding has so far done more good for this world than any contemporary trigger-happy relevance.
Finally, I agree that the Alliance is rather irrelevant as is the MU idea - each president likes to have a memorial. However, describing EU summits as an example of irrelevance I believe is not on the level of a top foreign policy writer. Of course EU summits are mostly boring as they mostly deal with rather boring policymaking (e.g. milk quotas :-), despite the fact that they gather 27 presidents and PMs. You can’t have and do not need or even want to have a new Lisbon, Nice or Schengen every 6 months. Most US, Chinese…, cabinet meetings are boring and irrelevant just as well.
Posted by: Aljaz | March 15th, 2008 at 9:20 pm | Report this commentGR “The French claim that the EU summit has already endorsed the idea - and they will certainly try to give it a renewed push when they take over the presidency of the EU later this year.”
Are the French correct? i.e., “that the EU summit has already endorsed the idea “…If that is true why did Sarkozy and Merkel cancel their “economic summit ” meeting last month which rumor has it that the MU was to be at the heart of the discussion, and postpone talks until June? Some say that Merkel is not keen on the MU idea, (some say she is not very keen on Sarkozy either!).
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 16th, 2008 at 4:09 am | Report this commentIt appears that France wants to find some way of not tangling with Turkey over EU status,hence the MU was born. MU members would include 7 EU members Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, Malta, Cyprus and France, plus North African and Turkey and Israel…It seems to me that creating an entity whereby some 7 EU countries have dual memebership, both EU and MU, would lead to possibly more privilege and/or conflicts of interest and is NOT a way to enhance EU strength stability or cohension ….. Why would the other 20 EU members endorse this arrangement?
Hi Gideon,
Plans that children make appear quite important to them, and they may just as well be. The problem is that children have no real decision making powers. Their plans are fine as long as they do not interfere with what adults want.
Posted by: Dusan | March 16th, 2008 at 4:51 pm | Report this commentIf you go back in time to Hellenistic world in first and second century AD, you’ll find the same sort of irrelevance and comfortable, directionless existence. People whose forefathers invented civilisation lingered under the government of a western warlike tribe, whose only qualities were ability to stab at close distance, dig trenches, build roads and finally regulate issues of private ownership. However, Hellenistic world believed other warlike tribes were worse, and for direction in their lives, they embraced Christianity. It suited their situation the best. Jews, on the other hand, refused to be irrelevant, and their descendents are still coping with consequences of this decision.
What makes Zapatero and his initiatives irrelevant, and the same goes for any other initiative of EU politicians, is that if they get enough pressure from US, they will send their troops to fight any or all the nations involved in this initiative. They will increase their CO2 output fivefold. They will put Creationism in their school curriculum. And the rest of the world know that.
Being relevant comes from living to your set of rules and priorities even if hurts. Current generation of EU politicians wouldn’t know a principle if it bit …, and Zapatero is far from being the worst.
Dear All!
Posted by: Vladimir Weissman | March 16th, 2008 at 5:13 pm | Report this commentThere is no 0% and, nor 100% in nature and in politics. Of course, Europe (define it first, please!) is not irelevant. But is there any doubt that Western Europe grew rich under the protection of the US military during the Cold War? Then when the Serbs got ugly upon losing their lil empire Europe just stood by and watched. The US acted. This “Alliance of Civilization” is just plain pandering to Moslem states and local Moslem communities. If there was a “civilization” to ally youreself with, it would not be sending millions of people to the other one - for a better life. Look at the index of failed states.
Some European states have fought in both Afghanistan and Iraq, in spite of MSM anti-western disgust. Europe is not a monolith. And the problem seems to me is more the ethernal infatuation of the intellectual elite - especially those in the MSM - with violent anti-western movements.
It will all be “understood” and commented upon in 50 years time. But action or inaction happens now. This very minute.
[…] his blog for the Financial Times, Gideon Rachman discusses European relevance/irrelevance. His final paragraph contains the following: I am not trying to sneer at the Europeans. Well, only […]
Posted by: European Irrelevance? « The Arc of History | March 17th, 2008 at 12:02 am | Report this commentGR:”But the “alliance” is a complete non-topic in the real world. (Can any readers of this blog honestly say that they they know what it is, without benefit of an internet search?)”
Well, I shall admit it!…I certainly had to do an internet search! And as a result, I am here to say that I think the “Alliance” is important and I fully support it! Further, I also think it is regretable that “in real world” this is not a hot topic.
As I was reading about it, it reminded me of what I thought was one of the more thought provoking panels at Davos this year. It was Pastor Rick Warren on a panel on “faith and modernity” which included various East and West religious leaders, and was moderated Tony Blair,…Warren said “If you’re a global leader, you have to realise that the future of the world is not secularism,….there is going to be more religion, not less. You may not like it, but that’s the way it is.”
In any event, the Alliance of Civilizations should be promoted . Perhaps the reason it is not discussed is because basically you must take religion and the role it plays in culture, history and society seriously and many people, especially intellectuals, the press and politicians, simply are not comfortable or just refuse to do just that.
Here are 2 links to help better understand the effort…I am all for noble endeavors!…we have to keep trying! that is what makes the world go round!
http://www.unaoc.org/content/view/64/94/lang,english/
http://www.unaoc.org/?page=10&id=97
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 17th, 2008 at 2:55 am | Report this commentThe concept of MU is definitely relevant to some specific topics such as regulating red tuna fishing or seawater pollution. But this will work only if vague ideas such as ‘dialogue of civilizations’ are kept away from the agenda.
Posted by: Michel | March 17th, 2008 at 9:25 am | Report this commentIt looks as though (European?) soft power is in the ascendancy.
“For the first time in the 60-year history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Russia will attend the alliance’s summit meeting on April 2-4 in Bucharest, Romania”, it was reported last week. By way of reaction, the US secretaries of state and defence have urgently flown to Russia in advance of the summit to try to assuage fears about their hard power policies - such as basing missile defence facilities in the Czech Republic and Poland.
Russia seems to like the European attitude. Russia now says it wants a strategic partnership agreement between Brussels and the Kremlin.
Posted by: Slightly Optimistic | March 17th, 2008 at 9:45 am | Report this commentEurope is not converting treasure into middle eastern shrapnel at the rate of billions of US Pasos a month.
It took a while but Europe learnt, wars cost a lot more than talking.
Posted by: fred nerk senior | March 17th, 2008 at 9:56 am | Report this commentActually I am an American who not only knows what the Alliance of Civilizations Un intiative and conference is, and is about…I atended the first one in Madrid in january. It was the most concrete “conference” I hasve ever attended and what came out of it was meaningful…the creation of an up to $200 million UN Media fund as well as the beginnings of a UN media datdbank the world press can turn to in times of crisis to link up with those on site in areas of the world where events are taking place. Attendees from various countries and religions got it and real information was shared and many people voiced the same feeling I had which was that there were real outcomes from this event.
Posted by: vivian norris de montaigu | March 17th, 2008 at 10:31 am | Report this commentI know that UK and USA do prefer a weak Europen Union and will ignore and try to destroy any economic-social iniciatives that could change this fact but maybe they should get used to deal with others strong economic players, because it is a real fact.
Posted by: P | March 17th, 2008 at 12:48 pm | Report this commentOpen your eyes and be wellcome to real world.
Dear Sir,
we’ve been listening to all these arguments for more than 10 years now. Your apology of a strong and brave country looks much more ridicolous to the rest of the world then the attempt ot the European Union to deploy diplomacy instead of terror and war. You might want for a second to stop your cynical ideology and look around: apparently, the rest of the world won’t recognize the US a superior moral leadership. And while you are offending, the semantic countepart of bombing, Europe, the US is facing the biggest crisis ever in its short history.
And yes, we have choosen long-term progress, we have choosen democracy and diplomacy, we have choosen education and welfare for all and all this is one of the biggest political challenge ever attempted: the European Union.
You are the most welcome to visit Madrid and Paris whenever you want.
Best
federico
Posted by: Federico Riggio | March 17th, 2008 at 3:39 pm | Report this comment