Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Europe A World Power? Not So Much

TW: "Europe" encompasses a large population, a large economy and many wonderful cultural attributes. What it does not exhibit is a strong, central government which can focus those attributes into a world power along the lines of the U.S. or an emerging China. The three different "presidents" Obama (or other world leaders) encounters when visiting Europe symbolizes the diffusion of power. Furthermore it is unclear whether the Europeans wish for such a focus.

Large entities without unified control and authority will remain relevant but secondary players on the world stage. An American government fashioned under the original Articles of Confederation would have been such an entity. With the disparate interests and biases of the numerous states within the EU (small v. large, richer v. poorer, northern v. southern v. eastern etc.), Europe will inherently punch below its economic weight on the world stage. Not necessarily a bad thing but the entity will not be in a position to frame world politics the way some there would prefer.

From Economist:
“...When the American president arrived, three Europeans were with him: the Czech prime minister, whose country holds the six-monthly presidency of the EU; the prime minister of Sweden, who will come next; and the president of the European Commission.

...To euro-types in Brussels, such...vignettes point to one blindingly obvious conclusion: as soon as possible, all 27 EU members must ratify the Lisbon treaty, which creates the new job of a full-time EU president, so that small, incompetent countries like the Czech Republic no longer take turns to speak for Europe...Such critics often seemed inspired by a doctrine set out by President Nicolas Sarkozy, when he surrendered the EU presidency at the end of 2008, that “it is for big countries to take the initiative” in Europe. In other words: small countries pipe down.

...Does the Lisbon treaty’s full-time president hold the answer? It would sweep away the “Welcome to Lilliput” aspects of the EU that exhaust visitors like Mr Obama, notably the need to share a platform with three different euro-representatives. But consider the three big requests that Mr Obama made during his European tour: for more help in Afghanistan; for more fiscal stimulus; and for Europe to become more serious about energy security (ie, buy more non-Russian gas). Almost nothing was offered on the first and third, and the G20 conclusions papered over lingering transatlantic differences on stimulus plans and financial regulation. And Mr Obama also earned a public rebuke from Mr Sarkozy for strongly backing Turkish membership of the EU, which the French president opposes.

...Imagine that Europe already had a full-time president (Tony Blair, say)...How much would change? A President Blair might be able to push for a bit more EU unity over gas supplies. But he could hardly force governments to embrace Turkey, send troops to Afghanistan or change their views of financial capitalism.

During the NATO summit in Strasbourg, Mr Obama came up with a sharp observation. In its “wheeling and dealing”, and constant pursuit of different interests, political interaction in Europe is “not that different from the United States Senate”, he remarked. He was too polite to complete the thought: that European leaders, like senators, combine verbosity and limitless self-regard with a readiness to be bought off with money for voters back home, or favours for special interests.

...expect more people to argue that only a full-time president can save Europe. Be sceptical. Internal EU disputes will not melt away just because a powerful figure chairs leaders’ meetings. Dynamic Mr Sarkozy may be remembered fondly now, but many governments were relieved when his presidency ended. With Mr Sarkozy in charge, the prospect of a two-speed Europe yawned too widely for some people’s liking. It is the same externally. European and American leaders disagree because, on some issues, they disagree, not because of the way they organise their summits."
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13445660

No comments: