As Ukraine's agonizing struggle for democracy continues, Europeans wonder if the politics of principle can ever eclipse the politics of power. Is it naive to believe that the world amounts to more than zero-sum thinking? Can Europe promote fair play in international affairs, or must it accept a new game of great power rivalry as inevitable and throw itself into the fray?
Many Europeans see themselves as champions of global fair play. But Europe's opinion of its integrity is not always shared.
ILLUSTRATION MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
One example is Russia, which is skeptical about the EU's intentions, most recently over Ukraine. That should not surprise us. The EU has expanded from six members to 25, with Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Turkey waiting in the wings. Russia wants to know where the Union will stop. Does it plan to swallow Ukraine, Belarus, and the Caucasus? Most EU members view these as open questions, unlikely to be resolved soon. The Kremlin, however, seems to see in such vagueness a smokescreen hiding the Union's true intentions, though the recent EU-Russia summit provided an opportunity to clear the air.
In a sense, critics of the EU are right: the Union may be on a quest to reshape the world in its image. Nowadays, when the EU concludes agreements with non-EU countries, it includes all sorts of stiff requirements in areas like human rights, non-proliferation, re-admission of migrants, and terrorism. To countries on the receiving end, these conditions can seem like a subtle form of power politics, with Europe trying to impose its values on the world.
Indeed, for the EU some issues are non-negotiable, because they are pillars of the European model that we seek to share with the world. These issues include democracy and the rule of law, respect for human rights and the environment, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the campaign against terrorism. Countries cannot expect economic and other benefits from the Union unless they meet its political standards.
But are those standards really an imposition? It looks as if the principles of fair play are increasingly embraced outside of Europe. Consider Africa, where the African Union is taking a leading role in resolving conflicts on the continent and is increasingly determined to intervene to halt aggression and assure fair play for African minorities.
Even if the results on the ground in Africa don't yet look spectacular to outsiders, the change in attitude is real. Instead of playing the "Great Power Game" in Africa, the EU can support Africans' own efforts and allow them to benefit from the Union's experience.
Europe's belief in fair play for all reflects its self-interest, at least in some ways, because the world's balance of power is changing. Consider the rise of China and India. The investment bank Goldman Sachs predicts that the dollar size of the Chinese economy will overtake that of Britain and Germany by 2007. India will pull ahead of France by 2020 and surpass Germany by 2023.
As Asia's economies race forward, so do its political ambitions. Asians want to assume greater responsibility in the world, and it is in Europe's interest that they do, as long as they, too, respect the rules of fair play.
A sense of fair play also matters within the Union. The larger the EU gets, the greater its need for coordinated and coherent policies, and the harder it becomes to rally all members around a common position. Call this the "paradox of enlargement."
The three largest member states -- Britain, France, and Germany -- have tended to respond to this paradox by pursuing closer trilateral cooperation. Of course, there's nothing wrong with vanguard groups of members forging ahead -- the recent diplomatic initiative concerning Iran's nuclear program is a case in point. Indeed, every member state can be expected to cling to its right to pursue an independent foreign policy for the foreseeable future.
However, to ensure that the European whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and to guarantee fairness to all Union members, all EU states must work within the parameters of EU policy, as they have in the case of Ukraine. When they do, their efforts strengthen the legitimacy and authority of both the member states and the Union.
In a world of fair play, the flip side of rule-making is compliance, and compliance may require enforcement, through economic sanctions and other non-military measures. As a last resort, the EU must even be prepared to rise to the military defense of the values and principles it believes are worth protecting. If Europe is not prepared to take up arms when it must, then its appeals for fair play will sound to the rest of the world like mere posturing.
But if fair play is to be made global, European initiatives should be part of broader international efforts, involving both like-minded partners such as the United States and multilateral institutions. A divisive transatlantic rivalry offers no ethical or political basis for an enlightened European approach. On the contrary, fair play requires American power to back it up.
Bernard Bot is Foreign Minister of the Netherlands, which currently holds the EU Presidency.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.