This past week saw not only the Irish rejection of the Lisbon treaty, forcing a crisis summit this week to chart an alternative path to EU continuity, but also the annual EU-US summit in Slovenia, aiming to forge a common trans-Atlantic agenda on Middle East peace, climate change and trade.
The Irish vote is likely to fuel rumors of the EU’s demise, yet it is the latter summit that will prove more revealing about its future. While mending trans-Atlantic divides is commendable, the summit presents an opportunity to rectify misperceptions about the US leading and Europe following on global issues. No matter who occupies the White House, the actual trend is the reverse.
UNASUR
On May 23 in Brasilia, a treaty was signed to establish the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR). It was the most recent example of the real geopolitical revolution that has been under way since the end of World War II: the regionalization of international relations on the precedent set by the six nations who established the Treaty of Rome, which became the European Economic Community in 1957.
It was this breakthrough in thinking that offers the greatest potential to prevent the return of what conservative thinkers take for granted: superpower conflict between the US and China, or an East-West conflict between democracies and autocracies.
From ASEAN to UNASUR and the African Union (AU), it is globalization within regions that has become the driving narrative of political and economic life. The issue is not whether rival trade blocks will emerge, but rather that each regional grouping promises to eliminate conflict among its members, as Europeans have done. The US is no longer providing the security blanket or umbrella; rather, each region is building its own.
For elite observers in Western capitals, it has always been easier to conceive of globalization as global first and local second. Globalization is thought to be synonymous with Westernization.
But in many places today, globalization starts with bringing down barriers between neighbors, building common diplomatic institutions and eventually even common armies, peacekeeping forces and criminal courts — all of which the AU has now established.
A world of regions still needs leadership, but not necessarily a single leader. While many have fretted that Europe follows the US without providing an alternative course, in fact the EU has been providing this model for decades, and it is bearing fruit around the developing world, despite the US’ post-Sept. 11 actions, which have served only to discredit the West.
Today the EU provides more than itself as an institutional model. Its emissions trading system is the world’s leading carbon market and a model that progressive US voices yearn to replicate. It is the largest aid donor and market for goods from developing countries. And next year it will launch an external action service through which eventually the embassies of the EU will be larger abroad than those of individual members.
The EU is not finished. Even if its expansion stops at 30 or 35 members, its global presence will be increasingly felt on matters of global concern.
PAVED THE WAY
Even as multilateral institutions such as the UN, the IMF and the World Bank strive for reform to remain relevant, the EU has paved the way for a world of unions to focus on resolving their own problems and managing globalization as collectives.
One sees this in East Asia’s selective integration of WTO standards, and even in the push for an EU-style North American Union to boost competitiveness. Europe has become the gold standard for creating such institutions, and is far better poised than the US to be the arbiter of disputes among them.
A future concert of powers among the US, China and the EU — capable of setting basic global standards and leveraging the adherence of other major powers such as Russia and India — is a vision with which Americans should be familiar. It resembles Roosevelt’s “Four Policemen.”
A half century later, it is clear who the three most influential global actors are and who must assume responsibility for preserving peace. But among these three, the EU has the most credibility today, and must ensure that the other two do not return the 21st century to the 19th.
Parag Khanna directs the global governance initiative at the New America Foundation. Alpo Rusi is ambassador in the office of the president of the UN General Assembly.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers