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
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations