When a document results from a common reflection that brought together Jacques Delors, Etienne Davignon, Romano Prodi, Joschka Fischer, Jerzy Buzek, Guy Verhofstadt, Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa and Paavo Lipponen, with the task of editing the draft being given to Nicole Gnesotto, we know immediately that it is worthy of our attention. If the subject involves a new approach towards EU-US relations, then the attention we pay such a subject is doubly important. This document is the result of an initiative launched by Notre Europe and was presented and summarised in yesterday's publication. Obviously, it includes a certain number of observations regarding globalisation, the emergence of new powers, the necessity of European unity etc,. and, above all, it provides additional information, which requires both our attention and our commentary.
1. A lesson in modesty. The Euro-American partnership must be renewed but should not be in any way motivated by seeking to guide the world. From the outset, the authors underline that the US has to abandon any tentative ambition in this direction. They also emphasise to what extent Europe would become an irrelevance if it is unable to strengthen its unity. The two pillars of American power, military supremacy and economic success, “can no longer be taken for granted. Strategically, the US may account for half of the world's military spending; but it has been unable to eradicate terrorism, emerge victorious from the conflicts into which it has ventured or achieve progress in the Middle East”. At an economic level, the US financial system and model for growth has produced the crisis of which we are only too aware. Weaknesses in Europe are even more apparent and the document does not flinch from pointing these weaknesses out. Shrinkage is, above all, a demographic phenomenon: in 2025, the US and Europe will only represent 9% of the global population, as opposed to 50% in Asia. China will soon be the biggest importer and exporter in the world, India has become the world leader for technology and electronic services, and the list goes on.
The authors of the document are not guilty of displaying illusions or complacency in the analysis of this reversal in fortunes or in the demand made for global governance: “Western leadership is on the wane. Americans and Europeans are no longer able to defuse international crises alone… No global challenge […] can be dealt with without the help of Russia, China and other regional powers. As for the world financial crisis, the G20 has already supplanted the G7, establishing itself as the relevant forum for handling such matters”. Multilateralism is the only issue; and it is in this context that the EU and the US are being called on to define their new partnership, if we still want the Western world to play a role. It is with this goal that the Euro-American partnership should be renewed. This requires certain preliminary conditions to be met.
2. Europe should again resume the path towards political unity. The Euro- American partnership should enable the Western world to play an important role in multilateral global governance and defend its values and principles. The preliminary condition for Europe is to “revive the dynamic of intra-European political integration… A divided Europe has no say, but a united Europe has a real opportunity to be a driving force in the sound management of globalisation”. The analysis in the document pulls no punches: “For several years now the European Union has been in a state of crisis” in which its founding principles are gradually becoming eroded. The European Commission itself is finding it difficult to play a role in promoting and defending the common interest. No European country in isolation can exert any influence at a world level, including those that consider themselves the most powerful or having the closest relationship with the US.
The situation will only radically change once the practice of the veto is abandoned. The document authors, however, do not intend to transform themselves into the peddlers of dreams. They are not unaware that “the new Treaty does establish unanimity as the rule in the European Council and there is no question of re-opening the institutional debate any time soon”. Nonetheless, it is exactly this guarantee provided to national sovereignty that ought to encourage member states to “systematically seek unity within the Council” and once again set themselves the objective and goal of political unity in Europe, in an effort to present themselves as a single actor when encountering other spheres of influence and ensuring the EU's collective presence in multinational bodies. This is an indispensable condition if Europe is going to be able to have any influence in the world. The US must abandon any illusions regarding its political hegemony being able to ensure world order. Even if they act together, the US and Europe will not be able to provide solutions to the challenges of globalisation “given the new need to gain the participation and agreement of all major world players”.
3. For political (and strategic?) autonomy in Europe. The effective functioning of the new partnership presupposes, according to the document, another condition: the US admitting that Europe is a politically autonomous entity. The reasoning behind this is rather convoluted because it acknowledges that “European strategic dependence, as embodied by NATO, remains for the moment a reality” but this reality (which is acknowledged, as we have seen, for the moment, and which could signify an invitation to Europe to pursue greater autonomy even at a military level) “should not be taken to mean that Europe should forever remain politically dependent on the United States”. A sentence now follows, which I have found difficult to interpret: “NATO should be a military instrument, and no more, in the service of a broader partnership which the EU and United States must forge bilaterally”. How should this observation be understood?
The following is clear in the terminology used but difficult to evaluate in practice: “For Europe, this means putting an end to an allegiance that at times was less demanding than shouldering responsibility on the international stage. The United States, meanwhile, will have to accept that Europe is taking on this new responsibility, and allow for the possibility of real differences of views between partners who share the same agenda. This does not rule out for either side the possibility of entering into partnerships around specific issues with other players on the global stage”. Certain comments made in the document help to clarify what the last sentence quoted actually means. In the energy arena, the European economy depends on more than 60% of its oil and gas from three of the most unstable zones on the planet: Russia, the Middle East and Africa. The text also adds that the EU's “ability to exert political influence in these three strategic regions is extremely limited”. This observation is, perhaps, somewhat exaggerated and results from the fact that member states are “divided on Russia and the Middle East conflict, incapable of taking action on Iran and irresolute or silent on all the other major problems the world faces”. The invitation to assume autonomy in relation to the US in this regard is very clear: the Euro-US partnership, “still serves as an excuse to Europeans to shirk their strategic responsibilities and delegate their own regional security and global stability to the United States; notwithstanding the fact that US power alone is no longer sufficient to guarantee security or stability in the globalised world”.
These concepts are further reaffirmed and even strengthened. The Europeans themselves have access, within the European Union, to their own strategic responsibility in the management of external crises (in some cases, such as the Balkans, it is the US which requests this). The double conclusion affirms that a) different views are possible, indeed legitimate; b) globalisation is making the importance of military alliances increasingly relative. Whilst recognising the importance of NATO, the document defines as a vector amongst others, relations in which the essential element would become the EU-US partnership, which should not only manage politico-strategic questions but also economic and financial questions in globalisation and environmental security.
4. Towards a global system. The document draws clear conclusions with regard to the call for the EU's political autonomy and I quote: “European countries no longer see the United States as the one partner they can do without: They can remain loyal to the Atlantic Alliance while seeking other strong partnerships”. Democratic countries must learn to combine their legitimate interests with sharing power with other powers that have become incontestable players. This is the only way of achieving the goals that have become common goals for all the countries of the world. In an effort to avoid a return to the logic of a balance of power, it is necessary to pursue an efficient, legitimate and credible multilateral system that allows collective solidarity, balanced solutions and shared responsibilities to emerge.
The EU should play a specific role in the domain of global economic governance. The document affirms that it is up to the EU in this domain, to pursue genuine and qualitative change in the direction of seeking out a new international monetary agreement. The EU will not, however, be able to play this role unless it acts together. In this domain, a Euro-US partnership would be not very attractive because it seems very likely that it would appear useless and inefficient. The Europeans should have single and united representation in international organisations, starting with the G20, in view of taking the initiative for a genuine reform of the international monetary system.
Advantages, question marks and a few concerns. The document has the great merit of evoking another question that has generally been left on the sidelines because it is controversial: the demand to combine loyalty with the principles and imperatives of pragmatism. This column will be returning to this controversial but unavoidable aspect in the next issue and will not limit itself to summarising the document but will raise a number of question marks and express some of the concerns.
(F.R./transl.fl)