Emerging Powers in the 21st Century
Published on by James RogersBook review: The European Union and Emerging Powers in the 21st Century
Edited by Thomas Renard and Sven Biscop
Ashgate – £55.00
A few weeks ago, I received a book to review from two of my colleagues in Brussels. It is their latest edited volume published by Ashgate and currently available at the special rate of £44.00 from the Egmont Institute. As an edited volume, their book contains offerings from all the ‘usual suspects’, who have taken it upon themselves to write about European foreign, security and defence policies from a quasi-strategic perspective. They offered me a complimentary copy, on the condition that I wrote a review for this blog – my apologies if it has been a long while coming!
I must confess that I have not yet read the entire book, but I have read a fair amount of it. By and large, it is well-edited, and each contribution is well-written. It is particularly kind of Jolyon Howorth – in his provoking chapter on grand strategy – to cite a short piece I conjured up a few years ago, which called for a European Security Council to be formed. My argument was that this would help to guide European Union interaction with the outside world, much as the American and British national security councils now do, for both the United States and United Kingdom respectively. The chapters by Tomas Ries and Janis Emmanouilidis are also worth a mention.
Now, any book review would not be complete without some critique. As an edited volume, this book contains a number of perspectives, so it is hard to criticise any particular part. As with any edited volume – even good ones like this one – there are bound to be bits and pieces that a given reader will both agree and disagree with. If one theme runs throughout the book, however, it is that a multilateral order, as opposed to a multipolar world system, will take hold in the years ahead. To some extent this is a caricature on my part, but contains a colonel of truth. I’m afraid – as anyone who reads this blog will know – that I do not share this view. I believe that the world as we know it – which for the past twenty years, has been relatively secure – has emerged because of the concerted efforts of the United States and United Kingdom. These two countries have, since the end of the Second World War, been able and willing to configure a new order, by providing a relatively benign environment in which multilateral institutions, such as the European Union, have been able to flourish. The world we live in today is a product of their hegemony, which has made an indelible mark on both space and time.
Conversely, I think that, should those two countries lose their primacy, the world (and Europe) is likely to become a far coarser and more disorderly place – like a jungle, or, at the very least, like the cut-throat multipolar world of the early twentieth century. Most of the contributors from this book – for the most part – do not agree with me: they believe that the major powers will come together to find ‘common solutions’ to ‘global problems’ and that strategic competition on a global scale will be more of the exception instead of the rule.
While I think they are mistaken, I only hope they are right and that I am very wrong; or, at least, that they are correct in predicting the emergence of a multilateral world order, where the major powers – including the European Union – work together for the common good. However, the problem is: what do we do if it does not work out that way? What should Europeans do then?
My own prejudice aside, The European Union and the Emerging Powers in the 21st Century is a worthy book to acquire and read, particularly by any student of European studies. It provides an excellent snapshot of one of the pre-eminent European perspectives on the European Union’s place in the world, and from a range of authors.
Let me be honest, James. I’ve read several of your articles, but I am afraid that you are a little bit paranoid.
Paranoia about Germany (Libya/economic power). Paranoia about Russia (no softer relationships). Paranoia about the emerging powers (containment strategies).
Relax. The world changed and as a German I would rather leave you, the Atlantic Alliance and these global strategies behind. Strategies, which often enough harm international law and our relationships to Russia and China.
The United Kingdom and the United States are friends. But sometimes you guys and militarism overdo it.
Following the review I guess the question would be: ‘is the current order in place for the world order’s sake or for the dominant powers’ sake?’ If there is quite a number of powers and groups that give much weight to some sort of change (BRICS or China, etc.), we must conclude that they believe that ‘world as we now it’ is just not good enough for them. It might be good enough (being rich, free and alive all at the same time) for United States and United Kingdom, but then there is no point in defending it as good enough for everyone else. Looming change is always troublesome for those on top.
Seems like an interesting book. I’ve read a lot of Biscop’s articles and books – and it was always a pleasure.
@GermanView: Very good. I think my supposed paranoia is confirmed by your last two paragraphs. I don’t need to say anymore!
@MI: Yes, you’ve hit the nail on the head. But the most powerful countries at the top of the system are seldom the worst affected when the system they constituted is itself challenged. In fact, they are usually the least-worst damaged. It’s the weak and the vulnerable who are harmed the most. The last time two countries – Germany and Japan – thought and tried to geopolitically re-engineer the system, it was not the British (who set the system) who were harmed. The people who were harmed – excepting the aggressors, who were rightly punished by the British and Americans – were those in Eastern Europe, who were brutally murdered in gas chambers or turned into near slaves by the Nazis, and later put under the dreary Soviet-Russian regime; or those in China, the Koreas and other parts of South-East Asia, who were shot, bombed and raped by the Japanese militarists.
No hegemony is perfect, but those shaped by liberal democratic countries are far superior to those controlled by autocratic and illiberal regimes.
I agree with your conclusion, and it is hardly debatable.
What I see as an ongoing process, and what (e.g.) Niall Ferguson pointed out is that the rest of the world is rapidly implementing a lot of liberal democracy’s fruits (cherry picking them, actually), which is narrowing the gap in living standards and personal freedom. The technocratic tendencies of Europe’s political and fianncial elite are helping them a lot in that respect, sadly. With that in mind it might just be a bit more prudent to sit them at the table and share some dividends of world power and influence, while their behaviour is still manageable.
No one needs disgruntled military or economic power that feels it’s being dealt a bad hand. Knowing that United States and United Kingdom have the best international relations ‘software’ in the world, I guess I’ll have to hold them accountable to a higher standard, to make the apparent transition (co-option in the big league, in fact) as smooth as possible.
BTW: I live in the south-eastern corner of our continent. I know too well who gets to play with Panzers and Gulags when the showdown starts…
@James Rogers: What do you mean? I only state the obvious. It is better to live in a world, where people work and live peacefully together. Your mistrust and these rearmament strategies are outdated. Their only purpose is to provoke a counteracting force. The Cold War is over. The Russians are no threat anymore. Many Chinese students learn here at our universities. We have good ties to Indians. Brazilians are cool.
You live in the past, James. Life shouldn’t be spent with boring books about geostrategy and nerdy chessboards. Lets look together into a brighter future and stop this spiral of self-fulfilling aggression. That’s much more fun.
Greetz from Germany.
@James Rogers: Talk, Talk, Talk, but in reality nobody cares about such nonsense in 2012 anymore. Think about Euro 2012!
You shouldn’t mention the United Kingdom beneath the United States by the way. The British are just the poodle of the really strong guy. France, Germany and the United Kingdom are jokes compared to the United States and China.
This whole blog is just about the Anglo-Saxon dream of British inferiority complex. Don’t dare to think that anybody takes the British seriously. Haha.
@Rene: Sigh. This boring assertion has been asked since the days of Philip II. Hitler thought Britain was a joke; as did Napoleon. He described the British – contemptuously – as ‘a little nation of shopkeepers’. All those tyrants were swept into the sea. If they were still alive, you might also like to ask Colonel Gaddafi or General Galtieri if the British are a joke too. And Slobodan Milosevic. Finally, I wonder why all those wealthy Chinese businessmen think it necessary to send their children to British universities to receive an education, if the United Kingdom is not to be taken seriously…?
London is still the financial capital of the world. And Britain the second highest military power projection in the world (second only to America). Britain also has many of the top universities, etc., etc.
How much more serious can you get?
@Rene: The proof that Europe is not a joke is that the Euro Crisis is putting the world very near the abyss. The European Union is the biggest economy in the world and – by the way – its macroeconomic fundamentals are much more healthier than China’s or the United States’ figures. The real problem is not economic, but simply because it is dificult to sustain a common currency in the absence of a fiscal union. Regarding the United Kingdom, you are wrong, dude: there is a long list of dead people that laughed at the British and were then destroyed by them. British soft power (City of London, huge media conglomerates) has a truly global reach. Their hard power too is substantial. Even acting alone, without the United States, Britain is dangerous. Ask the Argentines what they say! The same about France. These two peoples have a national pride that is based not on their imperial past, but before of it, since the Middle Ages. You don’t subjugate a Briton, or a French; in fact, they like war, as long as their country is attacked or menaced. The Spaniards are the same, but unlike Britain and France, they don’t have the military might…!