REUTERS/Mohamed Abd El Ghany

The end of any hope for liberal convergence; the tougher tone in international affairs; the United States’ focus on competition with China, and also with Russia; Donald Trump’s ruthlessness toward Europeans; and not least Brexit—all these developments have shaken Europe’s decades-old “business model.”

Europeans increasingly realize that to leave defense and strategic leadership largely to the US and to focus mainly on domestic affairs isn’t going to work anymore—with a US president who often refuses to define US interests in a broad sense, one that includes the interests of allies and partners.

Europeans are now faced with the question of how to articulate and assert their common interests and ideas, and how to deal with old and new threats. Can they become, together, a relevant player in regional and global power politics? Are they able to collective unite behind the free and open international order that is essential for Europe’s security, freedom, and prosperity?

In a new global strategic environment in which rough power politics increasingly dominates, Europe must become more powerful itself, in order to be able to co-shape the international order according to its principles and interests. But the existing institutions and platforms aren’t really up to this task. The European External Action Service, headed by a High Representative with extended responsibilities since 2009, is not in a position to forcefully push for joint European interests.

When it comes to relations with major powers—the US, China, Russia—or the use of considerable resources and especially military means, Brussels only plays a minor role. Wherever Paris or Rome, Berlin or Warsaw see important national interests at play, they act unilaterally where necessary and at best try to get other capitals and EU institutions on board to support them afterwards.

Yet even France or Germany on their own are relatively powerless against a player like China. European cooperation has thus become vital for the geopolitics even of the bigger European states. Of course, ad hoc formats can be used and have often been used: the EU3 that negotiates with Iran, or the recent meeting of Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel plus Commission President Jean Claude Juncker with the Chinese state and party leader Xi Jinping.

A New Institution

Such formats, however, lack consistency and coherence, and the legitimacy to speak and act on behalf of Europe. Therefore, it makes sense to think about a new institution, the prospect of which has already mentioned by Macron and Merkel: a European Security Council (ESC).

An ESC would have to combine two main features: it would have to be efficient, and it would have to be legitimate, i.e. rely on broad approval. That means that not everyone can be at the table, but to have critical mass is indispensable.

With 28 heads of government, there would be maximum legitimacy, but little efficiency. The 28 would either agree to not deal with a matter that is delicate or too controversial, or paper over differences and come out with a minimal consensus that achieves little. The big member states who still have, in some areas, a foreign policy of broader relevance—particularly France, Germany, and the United Kingdom—would still act largely unilaterally according to their particular interests and views.

An ESC would have to take into account this reality of power and bring together those who do matter because of their size and capabilities. Yet in order to marry power with legitimacy, it should also offer the smaller countries the opportunity to occasionally take part in the negotiation. Thirdly, the EU institutions, which dispose over some resources and some legitimacy, should also be involved. And fourthly, in order to speak for the whole of Europe, the UK would have to be there, whether Brexit happens or not.

Such an ESC, which could meet twice a year at the level of heads of government and have a coordinating, non-executive role, could be composed of the three biggest states: France, the UK, Germany and the next three big ones: Italy, Spain, Poland. It would also include the presidents of the European Commission and the European Council as well as the High Representative for Foreign Affairs. In addition, there would be rotating seats for two or three smaller states. The task would be to provide a space for open and frank debate and for tentative agreement—perhaps published in a short document—about the big strategic questions in a world more and more shaped by great power competition.

The advantage of an ESC would be that twice a year it would draw Europe’s attention to major strategic issues and force leaders to come up with some kind of consensus. It could become one building block for a strategy of European self-assertion in a dramatically changing geopolitical environment.

The post Why Europe Needs a Security Council appeared first on Berlin Policy Journal - Blog.

© REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch

Over the past two decades or so, German foreign policy has been driven into two directions: some leading actors were looking West toward America, while others were rather looking East, toward Russia.

The red-green government of 1998 to 2005 provides a good example. In his second term, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of the Social Democrats (SPD) concentrated on his relationship with Russian president Vladimir Putin, in an attempt to counterbalance George W. Bush’s America, together with French President Jacques Chirac.

But while Schröder was exploiting his rejection of the Iraq war for electoral gains, his foreign minister, Joschka Fischer of the Greens, who was equally opposed to the Iraq war, continued to articulate fundamentally positive views of America (in a reversal of the anti-American views he had propagated as a left-wing protest leader in his youth).

Chancellor Angela Merkel, who took over from Schröder, is clearly a „Westerner.“ Having grown up in East Germany under Soviet domination, Merkel sees the US-led West as a political and cultural counter-model to what she experienced in her early years.

Her foreign ministers, however, have tended to focus rather on Russia. Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Schröder’s former chief of staff, in his two terms (2005 to 2009 and 2013 to 2017) first tried to bring Russia closer to the West under the catchword “modernization partnership” and then, even as major tensions erupted over Ukraine, tirelessly kept arguing for cooperation and coordination with Moscow.

Guido Westerwelle, foreign minister from 2009 to 2013, was equally soft on Moscow, calling for “more respect.” Sigmar Gabriel, who succeeded Steinmeier in 2017, was an outspoken skeptic of the Russia sanctions over Ukraine and a driving force behind the project of a second gas pipeline between Russia and Germany, Nord Stream 2.

Schröder, Steinmeier, and Gabriel all belong to the SPD, which considers Ostpolitik as established by Willy Brandt in the 1970s its foreign policy trademark. Indeed, Ostpolitik still plays an important role in the Germany public discourse, especially in SPD circles. But while Ostpolitik during the Cold War was aimed at bringing political change in the east, and was oriented toward Central Europe no less than toward Russia, today the term has often become a shorthand for good relations with the Kremlin.

Maas’ Surprising Change

Against this backdrop, current foreign minister Heiko Maas—also a Social Democrat—has performed a surprising change of course. Maas himself is, broadly speaking, a “Westerner” like Merkel. He has a strong commitment to liberal, western values and puts special emphasis on international rules and institutions. His „West,“ however, seems sometimes to be more defined by France than by America (Maas comes from the Saar, a region neighboring France).

Shortly after becoming foreign minister in March this year, Maas made it clear that he wouldn’t follow in the footsteps of Steinmeier and Gabriel with regard to Russia. He refused to use the established rhetoric about the need “to build bridges” with Moscow and to “keep channels open,” which was so often paired with criticism of the West’s supposed “saber-rattling” vis-à-vis Russia.

Instead, Maas has set a new tone, noting that “if Russia defines itself more and more in distinction, even in antagonism to the West,” then this changes “the reality of our foreign policy.”

And more recently, Maas has started talking about the need for a “new Ostpolitik,” one that is more focused on Central Europe.

A key point of his new approach is that EU member states must better coordinate their policies toward Moscow: “We need an understanding between all EU members about the foundations of joint action” toward Russia, Maas said. A new Ostpolitik “must take into account the needs of all Europeans—those of the Baltic states and Poland as well as those of the western [European] countries.“

In order to achieve this unity, Germany should act as a bridge-builder, counterbalancing the recent drift between the EU’s East and West triggered by the refugee crisis. Rather than simply criticizing Eastern neighbors for their attitudes, “[Germans] must learn to see Europe more through the eyes of other Europeans,” Maas said. “We Germans in particular should stop taking the moral high ground on migration, especially vis-à-vis our partners from Central and Eastern Europe. Mutual finger wagging and moral arrogance will only deepen divisions.”

A first concrete step in that direction was Maas’ participation in the third summit of the Three Seas Initiative in Bucharest in September 2018, where he also made clear that Germany would like to join this group. The initiative, launched by Poland and Croatia, aims at improving regional cooperation on infrastructure and energy from the Baltic to the Mediterranean via the Black Sea.

In a speech in Bucharest in August, Maas laid out the strategic context of his vision. First, there is the goal, central for Maas, of “a sovereign and strong Europe” at a time when the Franco-German motor is no more “able to drive Europe forward alone.“

Second, there’s the challenge from China. “Europe must also guard itself against divisions from outside. China has clear ambitions with respect to power politics, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe”, Maas said. Therefore, “we need a common European policy in our dealings with China. Only then will China perceive us as a partner on an equal footing.”

Third, there is pressure from Russia. “The same goes for Russia. As Europeans, we must defend the principles of the European peace and security order.” Only “a culture of common, coordinated action in our approach to our eastern neighborhood” can produce good relations with Russia.

A New Sound

This is a new sound coming out of Berlin. Maas is putting to rest a Russia policy that has failed to achieve the desired results. Instead of becoming more liberal, democratic, and peaceful, Russia has turned more autocratic and aggressive toward its neighbors and the West.

At the same time, Maas is signaling that Germany understands the strategic importance of Central and Eastern Europe at a time of renewed great power-competition. This a region where Germany must be deeply engaged on its own, not just through the EU mechanism.

The biggest challenge for Maas will be to turn his ideas and initiatives into political reality. The foreign minister will need substantial support from the chancellery in order to convince Central European partners that the German push is genuine, especially because German credibility has been massively undermined by Berlin’s continued support for the Nord Stream 2 project.

And Germany must find a middle way, balancing a value-based approach toward Hungary and Poland (with regard to their attitudes to liberal democracy) and the need to keep Europe together in a competitive, multipolar geopolitical environment.

Working with Germany’s eastern neighbors on infrastructure and energy through the Three Seas initiative, as Maas has proposed, looks like a good first step.

The post Toward a “New Ostpolitik“? appeared first on Berlin Policy Journal - Blog.

© REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

For decades, American leadership has been the most decisive force for the creation and maintenance of the liberal international order. After WW II, the US built an international system that worked to integrate individual states, in particular allies in Europe and Asia. Political and economic cooperation were supposed to replace the great power politics that had pushed the world to the brink of destruction. This postwar order is “liberal” in its very essence: It is based on the conviction that liberal democracy is the only legitimate and, in the long run, stable form of governance – grounded in individual self-determination, which it aspires to bring into a productive, constructive relationship with society. The liberal international order applies the same principle to states: Like individuals, states are seen as self-determined and equal stakeholders whose goals are protection of freedom and promotion of the common good.

At its core, this order depends upon America’s political will to use its immense power for the preservation and further development of the system. And while America has often violated the rules of that system, and its overwhelming power has at times undermined the self-determination it has sought to construct, its allies and partners have tacitly accepted this as the price for the US role as guarantor.

Turning against the Liberal Order

After 1989 it looked as if the liberal order would spread in a self-sustainable way – but the victory was only half complete. China and Russia have, to a large extent, integrated themselves into the US-led economic order, and the elites in both countries are dependent on economic interaction with Western liberal democracies. Yet politically, those same elites have successfully blocked the liberal model.

This puts them into a difficult position: As they oppose a globally accepted norm, they have to find other forms of legitimation. One method consists of control, coercion, and propaganda in an attempt to keep the ideas of liberal democracy at bay. The second approach is to generate prosperity. The Chinese elite has achieved this by betting on economic growth and integration into global value chains. The Russian elite had it easier, profiting from years of high oil and gas prices that supplied a steady income to redistribute, just as in wealthy oil states in the Middle East. A third strategy is aggressive foreign policy. Russian and Chinese leadership claim superiority not just over their own territory, but also over their regions. Both want to turn the concept of spheres of privileged influence into the cornerstone of a new multipolar order – an order in which a few superpowers control regional spaces and everyone else must accept their primacy. Both translate the principle of political order that applies in their states internally – autocracy – into the principle of an international order.

Despite having turned their countries into bulwarks against liberal order, they have failed to translate this rejection into a coherent, attractive alternative. Their growing aggression against neighbors has in many cases led not to the submission of other countries, but to these countries’ increased determination to resist. In both Russia and China’s neighborhoods, smaller, weaker countries have called on the US to provide security guarantees. The more Beijing has abandoned the strategy of “peaceful rise,” the more its neighbors have been alarmed and sought protection. And with the war in Ukraine, Russia has actually seen its influence wane. Resistance against Russia has strengthened Ukraine’s self-defense and given NATO a renewed purpose.

America First, the World Second

The liberal international order has survived until today because it has been supported by key states – and because the US has, since the end of the Cold War, decided to play the role of a guarantor. Yet the domestic arguments for such a far-reaching global role have lost strength over time. There is no clear and present danger to American security anymore. Neither China nor radical Islam has replaced the Soviet Union as a threat that would legitimize, in the eyes of American voters, America’s extensive and expensive commitment to global security.

Pressure on the American government to scale down global commitment has grown in recent years, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have only fed this groundswell of discontent.

And yet America has until now hesitated to abandon its role as a guarantor of the liberal international order. The US has enjoyed plenty of comparative advantages as this order’s architect and central force, and it is far from clear what will happen if Washington retreats significantly. Will this order implode, with disastrous consequences for regions that the US considers to be strategically important?

Such considerations made Obama – who swept into power on the promise of reducing America’s role abroad – hesitate. He was pulled back and forth between those in his team who wanted to maintain the expansive global engagement and those who wanted a break with the status quo.

Unlike Obama, President Trump has displayed no understanding of America’s role abroad. Instead, he seems keen to strengthen borders and to limit exchange and global engagement. For him, America must be protected against immigrants from Mexico, against economic competition from China, against terrorists from Syria. Allies and partners are a costly burden, international institutions mostly useless; what matters are transactional deals. “Americanism, not globalism, is our credo,” he has said during the campaign.

The consequences of Trump’s rhetoric are still unclear: How much of it will translate into policy? How strong are the counterbalancing forces – in his own government, in Congress? In any case, by electing a president with an anti-internationalist agenda, American voters have given another indication that they feel increasingly uneasy about their role in the world. They refused a candidate, Hillary Clinton, who stood for continuity, and that includes America’s role as the guarantor of the liberal international order.

If Not America, Who?

The question of what follows the American-led order is becoming ever more pressing. If the US abandons its role as guarantor, is the current order going to disintegrate? Or are there other actors who could at least partially take over?

It has become increasingly clear that neither Russia nor China is a candidate for such a role. Quite the opposite: Ruling elites in both countries are hostile to key parts of the liberal international order because it threatens to undermine their autocratic power at home. Moscow and Beijing share a concept of international order that is based on dominance and submission, a multipolar world with a few great powers that divide and rule according to their needs. Both have an interest in keeping the international economic order at least partly intact, but both are hostile to the overall character of an order based on freedom, equality and rule of law.

Instead, the B team must step in: Those liberal democracies that have an existential interest in maintaining the liberal order and are able, given their economic power, to play in the top league, must rise to the challenge. There are quite a few candidates for such a role. Among the world’s economically strongest 15 countries, there are no less than twelve other liberal democracies besides the US – Japan, Germany, Britain, France, India, Italy, Brazil, Canada, Korea, Australia, Spain, and Mexico (in order of GDP, according to IMF, October 2016).

All twelve are allies and partners of the US, and all have profited massively from the US-guaranteed international order. Together they have a GDP of $25,739 trillion, more than the US ($18,561) and more than China ($11,391) and Russia ($1,267) combined ($12,658). Five of them are European: Germany, Britain, France, Italy, and Spain (a combined GDP of $11,735); four are Pacific countries: Japan, India, Korea, Australia ($9,640); two are Latin American: Brazil and Mexico ($2,832); and one is North American: Canada ($1,532).

In order to transform themselves collectively into guardians of the liberal international order, the twelve would have to do at least five things:

First, they would have to pursue far more active foreign policies, based on a self-understanding as an important global force. The twelve would have to see themselves as guarantors of the institutional framework and the material infrastructure of globalization. This would also have a military dimension. They should be able to largely guarantee their own security and to provide protection to smaller countries. To achieve these goals, existing alliances could serve as platforms.

Next, they would have to recognize that their interest does not lie in the multipolar order that Russia and China are trying to advance, and they would have to be ready to confront Russia and China whenever they threaten the liberal international order.

The twelve would also have to build more interconnectivity and networks; they should be able to pursue goals without Washington when needed. They should conclude true strategic partnerships among themselves, oriented toward joint regional and global strategies. An annual summit could provide one such format.

The twelve should also aim to provide more leadership in their respective regions and bring smaller, like-minded liberal democracies on board to stabilize the liberal international order as a way to gain more weight and critical mass. Regional organizations such as the EU or ASEAN could serve as vehicles.

Finally, the twelve would have to accept that their own long-term security, liberty, and prosperity depend on the fact that other countries are governed in a democratic way. The liberal international order is based on the preeminence of liberal democracy at the national level. Strengthening democracies and supporting countries in their transformation from autocracy to democracy are therefore key common interests of these twelve states; a liberal international order can only exist if there is a critical mass of powerful liberal democracies.

The US remains the “indispensable power” in many regards. But Washington might further retreat in the coming years from its role as a guarantor of the liberal international order. The countries that have in the past profited from this order are confronted with a tough choice: either engage massively on behalf of it and rise to the challenge as the B team, or accept its decline or implosion.

The post Enter the B Team appeared first on Berlin Policy Journal - Blog.

© REUTERS/Joe Skipper

When German Chancellor Angela Merkel decided in early 2013 to build a joint European front against Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, she was aiming to defend what she saw as key political achievements of the 21st century. In a speech to the German parliament, she contrasted globalization with old-fashioned geopolitics that, in her view, drove Russian action. She pointed to major steps forward, including political integration, a culture of compromise, and peaceful reconciliation of interests. But she also lamented a „conflict over spheres of influence and territory, which we rather associate with the 19th or 20th century.” Russia, she concluded, valued “the right of the more powerful against the power of right.” And for the chancellor, that was unacceptable.

Merkel was determined to resist this assault against the liberal international order. Together with Washington and Paris, Berlin was the leading force in shaping the West’s response to Russian aggression in Ukraine. Economic pressure and diplomacy, in tandem with Ukraine’s military defense, was able to halt the Russian military advance and granted Ukraine a window of opportunity to build a functioning state that could better resist Russian demands. A surprisingly united West managed to reassert some fundamental principles of the liberal international order: might does not make right; smaller states have an equal right to sovereignty; unprovoked use of force against other states and annexing their territory is not acceptable behavior.

True, the West didn’t manage to restore Ukraine’s territorial integrity, nor did it intervene militarily. The fear of escalation with Russia was too high. But European and transatlantic unity against Russian aggression appeared to confirm Merkel’s view that globalization had swept old-fashioned geopolitics aside. After all, China didn’t support Russia, and Belarus – considered to be part of Moscow’s sphere of influence, – was openly critical of the Kremlin’s actions in Ukraine.

But the election of Donald Trump has put this worldview in serious danger. Judging by his campaign statements, America’s president-elect doesn’t seem to value the US-led liberal post-war order. It was a system constructed to prevent the kind of brutal power politics that led Europe into the abyss in the 1930s, when great powers – Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union – attacked peaceful neighbors and redrew maps at their wish.

For Trump, this liberal world order is a burden. He sees allies as countries that have outsourced defense to America without giving anything substantial in return. Trade agreements are not instruments to strengthen friends and weaken enemies; they are simply “bad deals” undercutting American workers. Trump looks at America’s relationship with the world from the perspective of a businessman, ignoring the context of history and politics. He fails to understand US global engagement as a long-term investment in regional and global order. For Trump, it’s a zero-sum game between domestic and foreign policy.“ Americanism, not globalism will be our credo,” he, said during the campaign.

Great Power Condominium

Meanwhile, Trump’s victory even inspired Henry Kissinger’s biographer, Niall Ferguson, to lay out a blueprint for a new world order. In an essay for the magazine American Interest, he recommended a “great power condominium” whereby China, Russia and the US divide the world into spheres of interest. Ferguson admitted that “the rest of the world would be the losers” of such an arrangement.

The Kremlin is probably delighted that Ferguson included Russia in his plan. Vladimir Putin’s aggressive foreign policy is partly aimed at catapulting Russia into the global top league. And Moscow has pursued that aim by trying to regain control over the post-Soviet neighborhood and grow influence in Central Europe and the Middle East. Kremlin-linked Russian experts and some Western “realists” have tried to portray Russia as a normal power, pursuing a realpolitik approach.

But classic realpolitik is based on rules and alliances, and it’s underpinned by economic strength. Russia under Putin has demonstrated disregard for international rules and institutions. And it lacks true allies that support Russian foreign policy. Moreover, Russia is currently ranked only 12th in the world (by GDP), just between Korea and Australia. Without economic or soft power, Moscow’s main foreign policy tools are its military and propaganda; it simply doesn’t have the right resources to play in the top league. In other words, Russia today is a Potemkin power. If it truly were a “realist” power, the Kremlin would prioritize building up the economy and forging lasting partnerships and alliances.

And yet a Trump administration may still fall for Russia’s invitation to create a new alliance. The reasons are many, from the significant personal bonds the Kremlin has developed with members of the Trump camp to the need to work with Russia in the Middle East, especially in Syria, in order to deliver on the campaign promise to fight radical Islam.

And Then There Were Three?

All this is underpinned by a broader, structural trend. Like Barack Obama, Trump is likely to try to reduce America’s global engagement. Both World War II and the Cold War forced the US to be the architect and guarantor of the West’s liberal order. And after 1989, that liberal order became the global order, with America again as the linchpin. But the incentive to stay engaged started to disappear, at least in the eyes of many Americans. Neither China nor radical Islam turned out to be an existential enemy warranting a strong American presence, at least not yet. Since the Cold War ended, the US has tried to shrink its global role without damaging global interests.

The Trump administration will face significant internal pressure to disengage. It may opt for a full-blown “realist” foreign policy, driven by great powers competing for influence. Trump may choose to focus mainly on China and Russia and ignore the interests of smaller allies and partners – not necessarily by design, but because dealing with the great powers appears to be much simpler, cheaper and less dangerous. This would create a closed club of global powers, similar to Niall Ferguson’s blueprint. Russia and China have both made clear they want the US and its allies to keep out of their neighborhoods and honor a sphere of privileged influences. A tri-polar order would emerge.

But such a world order would not be more peaceful. Russia, China, and potentially Iran would feel emboldened in their bid for regional dominance. Other regional powers would build up their own military strength and look for new alliances. There would be increasing competition over the weaker players. The possibilities for clashes and conflicts would multiply.

We would likely see more nuclear powers, an emphasis on military power in general, new and more fluid alliances, less stability, decreasing respect for international rules and distrust and aggression driving international affairs. And we would see more conflict, as great powers would fight over the delineation of their mutual spheres of influence, while medium-sized powers would try to resist a status of diminished sovereignty.

Globalization — a system of cooperation, integration and interdependence — would have no future in this order. States would impose stringent border controls, and economic integration and trade would decline, as would the exchange of information. No major global player and no alliance would feel responsible for upholding international rules or protecting the physical infrastructure of globalization, from waterways to internet cables.

Without American protection, Europe might not be able to uphold its own liberal order. The EU has built a unique system of cooperation and integration, but this has been achieved under the condition that most questions of strategy and hard power have been dominated by Washington. If the US umbrella vanishes and power and competition fully return to Europe, the EU might disintegrate into parts. A post-American Europe would probably be open to divide-and-rule strategies devised in Moscow and Beijing.

It’s difficult to predict just what path the Trump administration might choose. Regardless, European governments need to do two things: One is to invest in their own strength, including military power, and to continue to cooperate more on foreign policy matters. The other is to reach out early and in a focused way to the Trump administration in order to familiarize him  with European views and interests. By becoming a strong, powerful partner to the US, Europe would increase the chances that the transatlantic partnership remains what it has been in the recent decades, namely the foundation of the liberal world order. It has made Europe free, safe, and rich.

The post Trump’s World appeared first on Berlin Policy Journal - Blog.

© REUTERS/Brendan Smialowski/Pool

A truly joint European foreign policy – in contrast to the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) presently pursued by Brussels – offers the chance to strengthen not only the framework in which individual states operate, but also to multiply their weight, allowing each member state to punch far above its weight in the international arena. The tasks such a foreign policy would be charged with are no less clear: first, stabilizing Europe’s neighborhood; second, strengthening the partnership with the United States; and third, helping to shape the future of globalization.

Stabilization of the Neighborhood

The post-Soviet space has not developed a stable, prosperous order. Russiaʼs view of other post-Soviet countries as its sphere of control is as challenging as the weakness of state structures in the region. Where there is no widely legitimized government delivering public goods, where Mafia-like clans dominate the heights of economic and political power, states will remain fragile and borders unsafe. And as long as Russia systematically inhibits the construction of more solid state structures, the economies will remain weak, the societies will remain fragmented, and policy will generally be structured autocratically.

Here Europe has a double task. First, it must limit Russian aggression, meaning discouraging Moscow from implementing its designs through violence. That will make room for the second task: stabilizing state institutions and strengthening their orientation toward liberal democracy.

If Europe ignores these tasks, instability will grow – and that means more conflicts, more war, more refugees and displacements, and more crime. Europe cannot permanently screen itself off from the East; it must invest in the construction and expansion of order. A prosperous eastern neighborhood offers more than just new markets – the region can also serve as a connection between Europe, Russia, and China.

The ongoing crisis in Syria proves that Europe cannot shield itself from instability in its neighborhood, and that any attempt to do so will carry enormous costs. Just as in the eastern neighborhood, in Europe’s south the construction and expansion of more solid, legitimate, and competent state structures is the core task.

In the Middle East, at least two crises are currently overlapping. The old social contract entailed the acceptance of autocratic elites as long as these elites safeguarded order and a certain prosperity. However, as the population has grown and the income from oil and gas dropped, more and more young, well-qualified people feel cheated. The potential for revolution is ever-present, as the so-called Arab Spring demonstrated.

In addition, there is the battle between Iran and Saudi Arabia over dominance of the region. Saudi Arabia feels threatened by Tehran’s expansive regional politics and is working to expand its activity to limit Iranian influence in the neighborhood, while the US is barely present to maintain order – as it has shown in its hesitant, half-hearted engagement in Syria.

Terror and massive refugee flows coming from Europe’s southern neighborhood have the potential to destabilize the continent itself. In the next few years, Europe will have to finally develop a serious policy for the South. That will necessitate the development of economic options through cooperation, the promotion of zones of stability, the struggle against instability, and cooperation with both regional and global powers to push back against civil war and violence.

The US as Key Partner

The US will, for the foreseeable future, remain the most important global power. With Washington, Europe has a partner that is not only the most powerful country in the world, but one with which it shares significant values and principles – which a comparison with Russia and China makes ever more apparent. Together with their partners, in particular in Asia, Europe and the US keep having sufficient critical mass to decisively shape world politics.

America remains essential for the defense of Europe in the framework of NATO. However, this engagement requires constant care. It is already difficult for American politicians to explain to their constituents why the US must help carry the burden of Europe’s security; Europeans can by no means assume that America will be prepared to do so indefinitely. In order to continue the military partnership, Europe must do more. The stronger the European pillar within NATO, the more ready the US will be to invest further in NATO. At the same time, growing European defensive capabilities mean that Europe can, if necessary, take up its own defense should Washington take an isolationist course.

For a European foreign policy, the connection with the US will remain essential, too. The combined weight of the two powers in normative, economic, military, and political respects remains unmatched, especially when the two are strengthened by sustained cooperation with heavyweights like Japan, Indonesia, India, or Brazil.

Even in its own neighborhood, Europe will not be able to establish order without – or against the wishes of – the US for the foreseeable future. European relationships with Russia, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Egypt must to be tightly coordinated with Washington for the next few years, because in these relationships the US carries such significant weight.

At the same time, it is no longer sufficient to wait for Washington to make the first move. America is no longer prepared to be the strategic leader in and on behalf of Europe. Even if it is not yet clear to what degree the US is permanently reducing its international engagement, it can be assumed that its national interests will be significantly more narrowly defined in the future.

Europe will need to take on leadership itself, developing its own strategies and then working to gain Washington’s support.

Shaping Globalization

The streams of information, people, and goods crossing borders keep increasing, a process that on balance furthers security, freedom, and prosperity of its participants. Globalization is, however, not a natural process – it requires several prerequisites that must be established and secured.

First off, globalization relies on physical infrastructure: transportation routes for planes, ships, cars, and trains, along with internet cable. This physical infrastructure must be built, expanded, and protected. Second, globalization relies on the rule of law: complex contracts and norms that cross borders and allow the mobility of people, goods, services, and information.

Third, globalization relies on a broader political order favorable to openess which supports connectivity and network-building and prevents interruptions. This framework was developed and guaranteed predominantly by the US over decades, and includes both the influence of sovereign states and the structures of global institutions like the UN and WTO.

At the same time globalization is not politically neutral. It is driven by certain liberal principles such as individual freedom in the economy, in society, and in politics; a willingness to limit the role of the state mainly to the task of a guardian of freedom; and the optimistic assumption that crossborder interaction strengthens these liberal principles.

Since the end of the Cold War, globalization has become more widespread and intense. At the same time, however, there is a growing tendency on the part of autocratically governed states to push back against the political ramifications of globalization while profiting from the economic aspects. For those in power in Russia and China, political globalization, with its principles of freedom, is a threat; at the same time they rely on the economic benefits of globalization to keep their regimes in power.

Both use their weight in global organizations to weaken political globalization, while setting up regional orders in their neighborhoods following autocratic principles. In Moscow and Beijing’s view, weaker neighbors have no rights and are at the mercy of their stronger neighbors. For both, imperialistic foreign policy is an important pillar of their respective regimes; both see the US as a rival because it stands in the way of their imperial designs.
Europe, on the other hand, has an interest in strengthening the liberal international order. Political and economic globalization are both expressions of this order; both are two sides of the same coin.

In the past, globalization has been predominantly designed and secured by the US. America’s relative weight, however, has declined, and so has its readiness to invest resources in the global order. Without the preparedness of states to invest in globalization, it cannot be maintained. When even the major liberal democracies only consume global governance without producing it themselves, the fragile structure supporting globalization is in danger of collapse.

It is within both Europe’s interests and abilities to play a stronger role than in the past as a second plank of the liberal world order, in partnership with the US and other liberal democracies, in particular in Asia. The future of globalization depends on Europe and America’s preparedness to play this role.

Launchpad Brussels

In order to be an effective partner to the US in this endeavor, European states need to work together closely. In theory this means that Brussels must play a leading role. With the Lisbon Treaty, EU member states indeed have built the infrastructure necessary for such a foreign policy: a diplomatic service and a high representative of the union for foreign affairs and security policy.

As a matter of fact, cooperation and coordination between the member states have intensified over the past years. However, foreign policy remains overwhelmingly nationally defined, especially in the areas that are important for the most powerful member states. In these areas the EU only enters the picture when member states want to strengthen their national policies by building coalitions and using joint resources. Brussels plays the role of a broker between states. It provides expertise and helps with the execution of joint policies.

The key to a truly common European foreign policy thus lies in the member states. It is their job to develop strategies, build coalitions, and guide common policies. Whether there will be a European foreign policy depends above all on the big capitals.

How such an unorthodox European foreign policy could work is shown by the example of the European response to the Ukraine conflict. Berlin developed the strategy that formed the coalition and managed its implementation, and Paris was there as a key partner; but without the unity of the 28 member states, the actions taken would have been ineffective. Only the inclusion of their EU partners gave the larger powers the necessary efficiency and legitimacy.

The Ukraine conflict showed at the same time how important US support continues to be for European foreign policy. Washington played not only a key role in ensuring the stability of NATO; close cooperation between the White House and Chancellor Angela Merkelʼs office also presented a united transatlantic front when it came to sanctions.

This Western unity surprised and irritated the Kremlin, which had relied on division and weakness. Along with the resistance in Ukraine itself, this Berlin-led policy stopped Russiaʼs advance in eastern Ukraine, and it helped transferring the conflict from the military to the diplomatic level.

The Ukraine example shows that Europe can act efficiently in times of crisis. By contrast, the example of Syria shows the consequences of the absence of such a joint European policy.
Paris, which has the potential to play a leading role in Europeʼs southern neighborhood, did not push hard to a joint approach to Syria. Instead, the French government tried to achieve its goals as a junior partner of the US. But instead of ending the civil war, or even tamp it down, Paris has only been able to watch from the sidelines as the conflict has exploded into wildfire.

Both Paris and Berlin have failed to build a common European Syrian policy. To what extent such a joint approach would have made a difference is hard to say. But it is clear that no massive engagement in the region can be expected from Washington and that the consequences of war and chaos in the Middle East will not be felt primarily in the US but in Europe. The price for inaction in Syria will be much higher than the European capitals have anticipated.

Stabilize or Become Destabilized

In order to advance their foreign policy interests, European states can either go it alone or work together. The Ukraine conflict shows how great the potential for a joint approach is, while the example of the Syria conflict shows how problematic its absence can be.

Europeʼs southern and eastern neighborhoods are both zones of instability from which Europe cannot simply quarantine itself. European states have the choice either to be active as stabilizing powers or accept that Europe itself will increasingly be destabilized.

Without a unified foreign policy, Europe will increasingly become part of the zones of influence of countries with more ambitious foreign policies, especially Russia and China. Both want to make sure that Europe is not becoming a powerful player, and both are trying to separate Europe and the US in order to “divide and conquer.”

As a plaything of larger powers, the European states will no longer be in a position to safeguard and strengthen the global order in which they are embedded. The US no longer wants to – or can – play the role of global stabilizing power alone; it depends on the EU to become a powerful second pillar.

Together with other liberal democracies, the US and Europe must confront attempts on the part of autocratic regimes to weaken and undermine globalization. The global order is grounded on liberal principles; without the validity of these principles, even economic globalization will not last.

Foreign policy has often seemed like a luxury to Europeans over the past few decades, one that can be done without – but with growing instability it should have become clear that regional and global engagement are absolute necessities. Security, prosperity, and freedom in Europe depend on stability in the neighborhood and on a liberal world order. An investment in foreign policy is an investment in Europe’s own future.

Read more in the Berlin Policy Journal App – March/April 2016 issue.

The post Player or Pawn? appeared first on Berlin Policy Journal - Blog.

(c) REUTERS/Alexander Demianchuk

Fyodor Lukyanov argues („The What-Not-To-Do List“, April 27) that it is the EU, not Russia, that is living in “a parallel reality.” He is implicitly referring to Angela Merkel, who is said to have told Barack Obama that Vladimir Putin is living in “a parallel universe.” He says it is not Russia but the EU that is an aberration, while Russia is just behaving like a normal state; the reality of Russian politics “is the reality that the overwhelming majority of the world is accustomed to, and which has existed for the duration of human history,” while the EU is “trying to build an entirely different type of international relations.”

I disagree. The reality to which the world is accustomed, and which has dominated the history of the state system, is not a Darwinist reality in which weaker states have to be prepared at any time to face an attack by more powerful states. While there have always been such attacks, they were the exception, not the norm.

The truth is that states have always accepted a rules-based system to organize their interactions. Of course, power has played and still plays a key role in the interaction of states. But powerful states have always accepted rules, agreements, and covenants to organize the state system. The medieval, the early modern, and the nineteenth-century state systems were built on mutual trust and adherence to a set of rules accepted by all players. Powerful states have always moderated the use of their power, for a number of reasons – because they didn’t want to push other states into hostile coalitions, because they understood that one day they themselves would need the support of rules against more powerful competitors, or because being a peace-loving state was an expression of the self-perception of a country.

The kind of behavior Russia has demonstrated in recent years in Georgia and Ukraine is not in line with the historical norm. It does not recall the state system of the nineteenth century, the Concert of Europe, which was built on mutual trust and obligation. Rather, it recalls the 1930s, when Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin were trying to replace the existing international order with a new system based on the idea that only might makes right – a Darwinist system deprived of every traditional ethical or legal constraint. The Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939, when Hitler and Stalin divided Eurasia between Germany and the Soviet Union, was the first modern dramatic example of this kind of thinking. A second was Stalin’s buildup of a huge sphere of control after World War II, mainly in Central Europe. All power was to be located in Moscow; the member states of the Warsaw Pact were just satellites whose obedience was enforced with brute military power.

The Stalinist conception of international order was a caricature of the traditional European state system. Legitimized by the ideology of communism and the idea of a final showdown with capitalism in the very near future, Moscow took the elements of power from this traditional system while neglecting rules-based order and consensus. Under Putin, it seems that this idea of international relations is experiencing a renaissance: Moscow again ignores the rules upon which an international order is maintained. Putin appears to think that beyond liberal internationalism and Western coalitions lies nothing but the same vertical power system that he himself wants to introduce, a system based on repression and fear.

The liberal world system that the United States has built, however, is shaped by consensus and association. The United States became an empire by invitation during the Cold War; NATO members were not forced into membership. Western Europe was always keen to keep the United States around as the ultimate safeguard of its security. When the Soviet empire, built and kept together by brute force, fell apart, Central Europe was eager to benefit from the same relations with the United States that Western Europe had enjoyed since the end of World War II.

One main feature of the liberal world system is that less powerful countries can simply say no to more powerful countries. Turkey didn’t grant overflight rights to the United States during the Iraq War, a war half of Europe opposed despite Europe’s dependence on a U.S. security guarantee. If countries do not want U.S. bases, they throw the Americans out, as the Philippines did in 1991. If Germany does not want to sign up to a no-fly zone in Libya, it has the freedom to say no. Yes, the rules sometimes get broken; the rules-based order is far from perfect. But it is there as a very powerful regulative idea. If a country breaks the rules, it is criticized: U.S. leadership has been hurt by events in Vietnam, Chile, and Iraq.

A second feature of the liberal world order is that powerful countries must provide public goods to others if they want to stay influential. They need to provide strategic leadership, protection, market access, and a problem-solving capacity – things that people in other countries actually want. Russia’s inability to provide stability, prosperity, and freedom to people in its neighborhood have led to a growing resistance against Russian power in the post-Soviet space; the color revolutions were a response to Russia’s heavy hand. Russia is increasingly perceived as driven by aggression and egocentric expansionism, a lack of respect, and a disinterest in the welfare of average people. It is seen as the power behind corrupt elites who exploit their countries and prevent them from developing.

And Moscow is blind to yet another feature of the liberal order. While the UN system is based on sovereignty, the term sovereignty has increasingly become defined as responsibility. When dictators kill their people, they lose the right to govern. The responsibility to protect is becoming a norm, or at least a moral benchmark for world opinion. Sovereignty is no longer absolute – it is qualified.

Sovereignty has also been weakened by a process that is felt less in Moscow: globalization. While rich Russians have become part of the international consumer society, the country is not deeply interconnected with the world as a producer of goods or services. Russia’s rise in the 2000s was built on the huge reservoirs of natural resources under Russian soil. It is the abundance of oil and gas that has allowed Russia to rebuild a position of power and strength in recent years. But unlike China, which is the world’s workbench, Russia has only superficially entered the deep web of globalization.

The relatively strong position of energy producer has led to the delusion in Moscow that Russia can go it alone. It has created a false sense of superiority and independence in a regime that dresses itself up in increasingly Soviet clothes.

The attack on Ukraine demonstrated the self-defeating hubris of this approach. Russia has antagonized not only its main international partners and the best, most loyal customers of its energy but also its most important neighbors: Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan. Putin has lost Germany, the country in which he has invested so much since the early 2000s. Russia has lost international stature; the UN Security Council, which gives Russia a huge role on the international stage (and geopolitical parity with the US) is massively devalued by Moscow’s irresponsible use of its veto. Russia is out of the G7, and Europe is busy working to scale down its energy imports from Russia. Meanwhile, China, which sees Russia as a junior partner in the best case, has achieved a profitable energy deal with Russia and made advances in Russia’s southern neighborhood, working on a direct connection with Europe, the so-called New Silk Road.

The only constructive way ahead for Russia would be to accept the rules of the game and start to engage with the international community instead of positioning itself as an antagonist to the system as it exists. But such an integration into the world system is apparently perceived by the current leadership as a mortal threat, as opening up to democracy and market economics would undermine the power position of those who have managed to control the country. They need to keep the West at distance, at almost any price.

The post Crying Foul appeared first on Berlin Policy Journal - Blog.