Out of area or out of business!
Published on by Luis Simón
In an article recently published in the International Spectator, I considered the implications of the United States’ pivot to Asia; growing unrest in the broader Middle East; and the European financial and political crisis’ impact on the European Union’s Common Security and Defence Policy. I argued that the Common Foreign and Security Policy and Common Security and Defence Policy are, respectively, grounded in ‘effective multilateralism’ and soft ‘crisis management’. Without prejudicing the value of international legitimacy, Brussels’ obsession with ‘multilateralism’ and its circumscription to ‘crisis management’ (a concept developed during the 1990s under the very cover of the United Nations) give the Common Security and Defence Policy a technical and legalistic flavour, making it almost ‘post-political’. The incessant quest for catch-all, please-all, self-evident slogans – such as ‘there is no security without development and no development without security’, ‘security needs to be tackled comprehensively’ or the ‘internal and external dimensions of security are inseparable’ – only reinforce this ‘post-political’ discourse.
Insofar as this sort of ‘post-political’ discourse ever made strategic sense (i.e., offer Europeans political cover as they free ride on the United States), it was only so long as the Americans played critical deterrent and preventive functions in the wider European neighbourhood. However, financial and political strain in Washington and the Asian pivot mean that the deterrent and preventive value of the United States’ military power in and around Europe is losing much of its credibility. The reductions in American military assets in Europe; Washington’s absent-minded attitude towards the Georgia crisis; and its distinctively cautious approach towards Libya, Syria or Iran speak for themselves.
As the Indo-Pacific zone demands more American attention, Washington does not want to get embroiled in the European neighbourhood. This creates a crisis of strategic leadership: this is the real driving factor behind the recent instability in the southern space. If they are to offer an alternative, Europeans will have to ditch their ‘post-political’ discourse and embrace the role hitherto played by the United States and the Atlantic Alliance. This will entail taking the Common Security and Defence Policy beyond ‘crisis management’ to encompass other functions commonly associated with the military instrument, that is to say, knowledge and anticipation as well as prevention and deterrence – not least through a permanent and forward European political presence in the wider neighbourhood.
Yes, power politics is back in Europe, and must come back, as the US becomes tired. But power politics might challenge unity among European powers. The role of the “post-political” discourse is also to minimize disagreements among the big players. And of course to bring Germany in which remains opposed to everything related to the use of military power (besides police work).
Absolutely. This is the core of the problem. Germany and its famous ‘civilian power’ instincts are, of course, largely responsible for this ‘post political’ discourse. But so are other countries, such as Britain, who have sought to downplay the European Union’s strategic role, albeit for different reasons. As I see it, Britain and Germany are the two key players here. If they fail to find a way to work together the EU will fail, and not just in foreign policy. I covered this recently. The problem is that this ‘post-political’ discourse goes much beyond Germany or Britain’s ‘tactical’ motivations. It has infested most of the continent – a continent tired of power. And when one is tired of power, they are tired of life.
It is not correct to see France and Germany as being more ‘European’ than the United Kingdom or Sweden. International politics is based in realpolitik and Germany and France are defending their national interest, like the British do.
A federal European superpower is something that makes sense to Germany and France, not to the United Kingdom (and, by the way, to my country, Portugal). Many people says that the British are ‘isolated’… but isolated from what, the Fourth Reich? And if we think about it, the European Union needs the British more than the opposite. The British could be happy by just being a big Switzerland, with free access to European markets. That’s what really matters to the British. But Europe needs Britain if wants to have real military power.
In my view, there is only three alternatives to Europe, for the 2020s:
1. The European Union remains as a confederation, maybe with a strong common defence policy (to compensate the already in-motion American withdrawal from Europe);
2. Britain and the other alleged ‘Eurosceptics’ go out and the Eurozone becomes a federation or a confederation dominated by Germany (that already is!).
The third alternative would be the dissolution of the European Union and then we would probably watch a German-Russian approach to run Europe together (the biggest nightmare of American politicians, even worse than a Chinese rival superpower, is an alliance between the rich and technologically advanced Germany and resource-rich Russia). In this scenario, the United States will not abandon the nations of Eastern Europe, unless it is forced to by economic circunstances. The American support to Poland, the Baltic States and Romania (and Ukraine, until recently) is already an attempt to split Germany and Russia, according to several authors.
If Germany and Russia could not work togheter, then we would see German-Russian rivalry. France would probably approach the United Kingdom in a new Entente Cordiale, depending on how damaged where the relations with the Germans during the traumatic Euro-breakup.
In any case, the Europeans will have to choose between guns and butter, social security or aircraft carriers, because the Americans will not be able to defend Europe anymore.
The United Kingdom is welcome in the European Union and the Eurozone. Too be honest I am tired of the fact that we Germans have to pay the bills for the Eurozone. If that’s the price for ‘German hegemony over Europe’ or the ‘Fourth Reich’, the United Kingdom can get it. All the ‘influence’ and ‘power’. Britain can get it ALL!
You don’t know how many Germans would swap with the British and their pound sterling.
@GermanView: I believe you when you say that Germany doesn’t need to be the ‘hegemon’ of Europe, but in my view, the truth is that Germany is an accidental empire, like the United States became in 1941/1945. It’s ironic: Germany tried to conquer Europe in the past, but failed; now, Germany in conquering Europe, even not wanting to do it. And I think that the creation of a European Federation makes sense to German (and French) national interest. And maybe to Italy, Spain and the Netherlands, because they have enough power to conter-balance German and French influence, when required (like we saw in the Euro summit, last week). But a European Federation would be ruinous to the small maritime nations like Portugal or Sweden, or to big ones like the United Kingdom.
I don’t think that Germany is a empire at all. Which empire had ever to pay for its colonies? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? There is no real benefit for Germany in this crisis.
Imagine what would’ve happened, if there had already been a real political European Union at the summit:
The other countries like France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece have a bigger population than Germany and the northern states, which means that they would have just outvoted us. The EU is organised as a democracy and we are not the majority here. Additionally German politicians don’t really care about the geostrategic relevance of the population number and too be honest I don’t care about it, too.
There is big gap between impressions and the raw data. Germany isn’t much more influential than the United Kingdom, France or Italy in political terms. Germany is just the only nation, which everyone begs to pay their bills.
And of course the British cowardly run away and let us alone with this mess again! Shame on them! And now they complain that we Germans run the show – pay the bills – for Europe. They could and can do the same, if they want. But they don’t! What hypocrisy! (However the Germans would have done the same like the Britons.)
I didn’t say that there is a benefit in being an Empire. Or that the Germans want to run Europe. But I think that Germany is a accidental empire, by its own dimension and capital importance. The figures you quoted are correct and, like you said, the other major European nations can surpass Germany in the big decisions (like in last week’s summit). But Germany has a major influence in the European Central Bank, and it remains the powerhouse of Europe, by being the world’s second biggest exporter (the first is China and by a small margin). The influence of Germany in the Eurozone is total: in my country, for example, Germany is the de facto paramount power, having more influence than any other nation (like the United States had in the 1980s).
Many European countries accept german policies regarding European integration because they have no choice: on record, politicians criticise David Cameron by its attitudes toward Germany and Europe, but of record they say that we would do the same, if we could. So Germany is an Empire, even without wanting to be one. But I agree with you: Germany is not profiting from this crisis and this will hurt the German economy also, because the Eurozone economies remain the major markets of German exports, in spite of the diversification efforts over the last decade. We are all in the same ship and the ship is sinking.
Regarding the demographics of a future European Federation, and in spite of the numbers that you said, Germany would be the biggest state and the German electorate would be the most powerful. I think that a federation would be positive for the big nations, like Germany and France, but not for the small ones, like Portugal, that would be totally marginalised in the decision making process. That’s why I think that the best solution is the creation of a Confederation of Sovereign States sharing the same currency, fiscal rules, foreign policy and defence, but with the sovereignty would belong to the individual states (like the United States before the Civil War in 1861). Each state would keep an eternal right of secession, if its people decide to. It’s funny, in Soviet Russia, the republics had this right of secession in the Constitution, but it was just a theoretical power. However, in 1991, with the communist party very weak, the republics used this right of seccession to put and end to Soviet Russia. Conclusion: a constitutional rule may look just theorectical, but that may change in the future. Sorry, I start talking and have dificulty to stop.
Germany is certainly not an empire. France and United Kingdom – with American support – did the job in Libya while Germany stayed at home… Germany has no real military power. France and the United Kingdom are both nuclear powers. The German population is declining, by 2050 France and UK will have a greater population than Germany if the current trend continues. Demography matters!
Europe as a whole could be an empire if it had the ambition and the strength to unite under a federalist system like the United States, that is a fiscal and economic union as well as a common foreign policy… There are many niche market interest and petty national interests that block such an endeavor but in the long run it should happen otherwise Europe is bound to end up as a mere chessboard for greater powers…
And what is costly today to Germans was also a big benefit to them for the last decade. Germany is exporting a lot to teh Eurozone countries. Had we (Eurorzone countries) not embraced the Euro, German exports would have not been so strong…
I am happy for the United States to leave Europe, as this will steer some action and force our politicians to wake up! It’s crunch time and we Europeans have a great opportunity to rise up again but this time together!
@German View:
That is rather the point, because at the end of the day power is wielded by the chequebook in the European Union, not by the hamstrung parliament.
I don’t agree with ‘GermanView’. It’s simply not true that Germany is the big paymaster that suffers for the others out of solidarity.
Of course Germany is the net payer into the European Union system but it is also the state whose economy profited most from European integration.
Plus, there are not only economic advantages for Germany in a closer union or even federation. Germany could (partially) make up for the horror it created in the twentieth century and help the nations of Europe to overcome nationalism.
If you add the global perspective the only answer can be a European Federation. I don’t want us Europeans to become a giant Switzerland or worse, the play ball of other great powers whose citizens only visit us like a museum.
There is no other place in the world whose values I would support more than here, such as a strong social state, liberty for the individual and diversity. So let’s make sure they survive the next years of re-emerging machtpolitik.