Politics: The European Counterweight

Is Europe a "Leaderless Superpower"? Why does the European Union exist? Which is its "raison d'être", and its goals? Is Europe "poised to become a vast federal superstate"? Does it seek to be a “counterweight” to U.S. global interests? Does Europe want to replace America as the world’s leading superpower? Or doesn't Europe aspire to have a dominating role (and certainly not military) in the world? Will economic interests replace military rule in the world, as it has in Europe and will the EU be a key player then? and has the will to challenge the political, financial and military muscle of the two superpowers (the US and formerly, the USSR) been a key motivator for the Europeans to unify?

These are some of the questions that the article "The European Counterweight", published in the American "real truth" website (from a religious organisation). From a north-american perspective, the article analyses some of these questions and provides an interesting insight into Europe's place and ambitions in the world arena.

As they write, "today, the EU has the economic clout necessary to make many of the rules that shape and govern world commerce". "Europe finds itself at a major crossroads: continue on its present course and remain in America’s shadow, while flexing its diplomatic and economic muscles like a passive-aggressive giant—or take the lead role on the world stage and become a dominant superpower."

Robert Kagan, (senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) quoted in the article, observed that “In an anarchic world, small powers always fear they will be victims. Great powers, on the other hand, often fear rules that may constrain them more than they fear the anarchy in which their power brings security and prosperity. (…) [Europe’s] tactics, like their goal, are the tactics of the weak. They hope to constrain American power without wielding power themselves. In what may be the ultimate feat of subtlety and indirection, they want to control the behemoth [the U.S.] by appealing to its conscience” [Policy Review, No. 113, “Power and Weakness”].

Yet, according to the article, what if the EU began to view America as unreasonable [as it is increasingly, in particular under the Bush administration], without a “conscience”? How would it react? Would Europe, perhaps feeling justified, again embrace its former, centuries-old tactics of machtpolitik (“power politics”) and flex its military muscle? Would Europe wish to become a world power to counterweight the US?

However, the article goes on, "European politicians and academics tend to view the use of military force as a relic held over from the era of colonialism and world-spanning empires. In their secular thinking, war is judged as a waste of time and money, and is immoral."

They consider that Europe is faced with numerous obstacles and challenges: "dealing with Russia and its competing interests; the growing economic threat of a China-India trade alliance; the continual Europe-wide need for oil; the rising tide of secularism, as the Vatican repeatedly calls for Europe to return to its spiritual roots; a growing and restless European Muslim population that could one day become the majority; terrorism from Islamic extremists; deciding whether to grant Turkey, an Islamic country, EU membership—the list goes on. (...) Europe’s future will be determined by how it deals with these and other issues." And they conclude that "Many believe that, because it is mired in bureaucracy and is severely limited by its system of governance by committee, Europe is incapable of choosing the latter path."

On the whole the article is quite interesting, yet some comments are tendentious, as when it is assumed that "religious convictions and practices among Europeans are fading from people’s lives, only to be replaced with increasing materialism and permissiveness", which is quite surprising for an American viewpoint…