How can Europe Meet its Responsibilities in the World?

What are the problems that need to be tackled?

Despite an increased global awareness we seem to be lacking the means to deal with the problems we are faced with in the world today. This is despite the remarkable advances in international law and international institutions that have been made during the last decades. National sovereignty and narrowly-calculated state interest have remained the predominant norms governing international law and international institutions, leaving little room for international problem-solving and law enforcement.

Take as an example the question of environmental problems. Despite the increasingly acute situation and an overwhelming awareness, progress has been hampered by short-term industrial-benefit calculations, as could be seen by the US rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, for example. Without the world’s largest carbon dioxide emissioner as a party to the agreement, its goal to tackle the threats of global warming becomes severely weakened and so do the motivations of other states to participate, feeling they will have a disadvantage relative to the non-parties to the agreement.

Due to the preference given to national sovereignty rather than to personal sovereignty, also the international community’s ability to tackle international and domestic conflicts remains weak, with severe humanitarian suffering as a consequence. One might only look at Rwanda for one horrific example. Intervention remains subject to the will of the parties in the conflict or the interest of the permanent Security Council members. At the same time, intervention outside of the framework of international law has become more common, escalating the use of force and again weakening the faith in the global structure. The question of poverty, the other main factor behind worldwide humanitarian suffering, remains unsolved, with diverging results in the international institutions’ actions, developed countries’ trade, development policies and globalization. Also, and often as a result of these examples of international failures, terrorism has increased in scale and impact. At the same time, State responses to this threat sometimes highlight the disregard of an international standard of human rights to be followed by state actors. This safeguard of human rights and personal sovereignty as opposed to national sovereignty is also highlighted by the continuous abuse of human rights by states such as Iraq, China or Russia.

Europe as a contributor

Europe’s biggest contribution to tackling the above problems and to participating in the building of a sustainable world order for the 21st century is something it has been doing for the last half of the century without any particular idealistic ambition: it consists in slowly constructing an unprecedented example of supranational integration, where states give up certain aspects of their sovereignty in order to gain the benefits of supranational action in issues ranging from environment to trade policy. It also provides an example of a successful supranational institution-building, which despite its black holes has come close to a supranational democratic system, where states at large trust the institutional setup, to the extent that they have at large given up their veto powers.

Having supported such a liberal institutionalism within its own territory, it would be nothing but contradictory for Europe to reject supranational solutions at the world level, wherever needed. Rather, building on its own experience, Europe must make a loud voice for the advancement of international law, the establishment of successful international institutions and norms and the promoting of peaceful means of international co-existence. As a consequence, Europe must also promote the idea of multilateralism.

To take such a leading role in this development is not only necessary as a logical deduction from Europe’s own structure; it is a moral responsibility towards the actors around the world looking at Europe for leadership. Few world actors can provide a counterweight to US unilateralism, making change possible, and few can by their action give such a large political legitimacy to international development. Not only does a concern for the rest of the world make an active involvement necessary, but so also does a concern for Europe itself. What is the security impact in Europe by the US unilateral military actions that as a result increase the magnitude of rearmament and terrorism around the world? How is Europe affected by global warming caused both within its own borders and by its trading partners, not to mention the ozone layer? What are the effects in Europe of conflicts leading to humanitarian suffering, economic degradation, immigration etc? How does the hindrance to development in the developing world affect Europe through world instability, market failures, immigration etc.?

Europe and international law

International law has developed immensely over the past decade, not only in scope, but more importantly in legitimacy among states and citizens across the world. But expectations around the world have often been transformed into disappointment, as international law has failed and the UN has been unable to act. Or as nations bypass the UN in the international arena and choose to act on a unilateral basis, disregarding the progress made over the last decades in constructing a sustainable international regime.

Europe has often been a promoter of multilateralism, international law and UN legitimacy. But Europe must make these demands stronger. In a time where the US has again and again shown its disrespect of international law, bypassed the UN, and acted on a unilateral basis, often with military means, the world is looking to Europe for clear leadership. In cases like the Iraqi war, Europe must make its citizens’ voice heard throughout the world and condemn any unilateral action outside the UN. When pressure is being put on countries, for example, by the US to neglect the International Criminal Court, Europe must provide a counter pressure and moral support and participation.

But the UN and the international law system do not only need support, it also needs change. The Security Council, once constructed to picture the balance of power of that time, has become outdated, but as so often, a conservative institutional setup is preventing progress. Europe clearly needs to take its responsibility by promoting a far-reaching UN reform programme. Through a transformation of the Security Council setup, including the abandoning of veto among the permanent members, and the introduction of a democratic chamber within the UN, progress can indeed be made in international law, and also the UN as an institution can win back its legitimacy. The EU can start such a change by letting itself be represented by a single seat, but actions by, for example, Germany demanding a seat, or France and the UK holding on to theirs, do not exactly encourage such a development. Europe could also set an example by establishing its own army - an army that stands under an international control rather than under national command. This army should be left at the disposal of the UN as a permanent armed force to be used under a UN mandate, again increasing the UN ability to act and its legitimacy.

Remove double standards

Europe has become the world’s largest aid donor, again setting a good example for the world actors by its own actions. But aid is only one part of a development policy. During the last decades we have seen that the international community often used the developing countries to pursue its own economic or ideological goals. Europe must make a clear statement that the developing countries’ ability to develop themselves is not to be compromised about.

When it comes to trade, Europe has clearly shown by its unprecedented example of free trade within the EU that free trade between states is of benefit to all. With this background, it should be unacceptable for Europe to set double standards, keeping Europe’s external borders closed. Europe, that today forms the world’s biggest market, must live up to its own example and allow developing countries to access its markets, enabling them to pursue a sustainable development. In the Doha round, Europe’s message must be clear: no double standards between the developed and the developing countries! The Common Agricultural Policy is another issue that has to be forcefully tackled, for Europe to meet its responsibilities in the world. Here, again, it becomes clear that reform is not only a question of helping others, but that removing the borders is necessary for Europe to become more efficient and meet the competition challenges of this century.

The question of trade exemplifies the danger that Europe, built on the principle of supranational co-existence, may turn back to the outdated principle of a narrowly-calculated national egoism - but focused on the EU as a whole rather than on the individual member states. The EU as a supranational regime has developed internally after a vision based on certain values and strict efficiency calculation. If this calculation the EU is based on is true, then Europe can not legitimately give another equation as the solution to international questions involving other parts of the world. If Europe believes in non-militaristic conflict solution methods, it must not, for protecting European trade interests, lift an arms embargo against China. If Europe believes in the fundamental human rights and democratic society, European leaders should not, for whatever State/European energy interest, stand posing smiling on photos, arms round Putin. Rather, Europe should make a precedent, putting national - or European - self-interests aside and make a clear stance for global justice. Few are in a position to make a claim with such strength. Few with such strength to make this claim are willing to do it.

Changes within the EU needed to play such a role

...to play an active role in world politics Europe needs to speak with one voice...

As the world’s biggest market, and as a power with a large political legitimacy throughout the world, Europe is in a unique position to shape the world order, and world ethics, for this century. We have already seen the trust and hopes given to Europe by world actors searching for an alternative to US dominance. We have also seen that the EU - when speaking with one voice- has been able to push through steps in the right direction already.

But in order to play this role Europe must develop further, and member states must be brave enough to move forward; for the sake of national interest, for the sake of European interest, but also for the sake of meeting its responsibilities in the world.

A precondition for achieving the above is to create an institutional framework that allows Europe to speak with one voice at the world stage. To carry on this foreign policy must be a competence at the European level, where decisions are taken without the right of veto. To play an active role in world politics, Europe must be able to speak with one voice with a foreign minister. Speaking with one voice, Europe will have an impact, something none of its member states at present has in its own right.

Europe can make a difference for the world of tomorrow if it chooses to. Europe is ready. Are the national governments?