The EU awakes from its long strategic slumber

For the first 20 years of my working life, about the easiest general political risk call I could make — whatever the crisis — was that the EU could be counted on to punch well below its weight. Despite having one of the three largest internal markets in the world (along with the US and China), Brussels was bound to disappoint, doing little practically in terms of furthering its specific foreign policy goals, as often it didn’t have any. Nor was it prepared to expend the blood and treasure necessary when it did.

Perennially betting against Brussels — economically sclerotic, militarily impotent, and geopolitically divided — did nothing to harm my political risk call record. Better still, from my point of view, the EU (shamefully) subsidized a coterie of supposedly independent foreign policy experts, who — well aware of where their bread was buttered — functioned at international conferences as little better than cheerleaders.

On the rare occasions the EU was successful, these partisans would trumpet this as a sign that Brussels was ascending to superpower status. When it failed, the not-so-neutral experts would sagely intone that, in failure, the EU would “do its homework,” using its missteps to make the next great leap forward in terms of its integration. This circular analytical reasoning mostly fooled those who were themselves spouting such logical nonsense, but my competitors’ being constantly wrong about Brussels has been very good for business.

However, as the historical adage has it: “There are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen.” With the Ukraine war, we are living through such weeks. A primary requisite of first-rate political risk work is to constantly check assumptions, even those such as my call about the EU, which have been on the money for decades. For the adage is right: Things change, the world changes in an instant; and we have to be ready for it.

In the case of the EU, the basic problem has always been Germany, its economic motor and by a long way its most important state. Henry Kissinger neatly encapsulated Berlin’s historical tragedy: It is too small to dominate the whole of Europe and too large to be just one of a series of European great powers. This uneasy structural reality was greatly exacerbated during the do-nothing years of Angela Merkel’s chancellorship, when for decades nothing happened except Berlin making of itself an intellectual and strategic black hole.

Steadfastly refusing to end its ruinous holiday from history, Merkel’s long, dreary rule led to Germany adopting a mercantilist, economics-first foreign policy, valuing its increasing trade ties with China and comfortable with its energy dependence on Russia. Putting itself in such a strategic straitjacket inevitably lead to Germany adopting a quietist, quasi-neutralist foreign policy, as to rock the boat by siding with the West against these revisionist powers would have had real and disastrous economic consequences. Never said in all this flawed logic was that it was Merkel who was deciding to wear the straitjacket of her own free will, rather than a cruel indeterminate fate thrusting such a choice upon her.

For a generation, this neutralist Germany has made the adoption of a genuine common European foreign and security policy an impossibility, as with a Gaullist France tugging one way and an Atlanticist northern and eastern Europe another, a chaotic tower of strategic babel was the only possible outcome. It was Merkel’s steadfast refusal to re-arm and to have any real outward-looking foreign policy that made a mockery of every effort at Europe forging a common strategic identity. As long as Merkel’s isolationism held sway, betting against Europe was easy.

But, in the blink of a historical eye, things have changed. In about 10 days the new German government of Olaf Scholz adopted almost every policy I have been begging them to undertake for the past 20 years. Germany can, after all, meet NATO’s 2 percent of GDP pledge for defense spending. Better still, after a generation of Germany’s weapons systems atrophying, Scholz has set aside €100 billion to bring its military kit up to speed.

In energy policy, too, big changes are afoot as Berlin has de facto abrogated the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project with Moscow, after decades of western pleas for them to do so fell on deaf ears. Equally significantly, Germany’s isolationist drift has been halted as it moves resolutely back into the US-dominated Atlantic camp. Simply put, in 10 days there has been more strategic movement in Germany than in the past 20 years.

At the higher, European level, Germany’s sea-change alters everything. Suddenly Europe is, in the medium term, not going to be militarily impotent; rather, with a re-arming Germany and an already militarily capable France, it will be a strategic force to be reckoned with. Vitally, Europe’s collective strategic drift toward either neutralism or chaos is also at an end; it is now solidly in the Atlantic camp.

There are surely many bumps in the road ahead, and changes this profound will not proceed in an easy straight line. But that does not lessen the momentous importance of the past few days. Europe’s medium-term strategic position in the world, for the first time in my working life, is on a decisive political risk upswing. 

This post was originally published in Arab News.

We must stop pretending the EU is a great power

This is a tale of two delusional think tank meetings I have recently attended, illustrating how far gone is most political risk analysis regarding the status of the EU. Cheerleading has taken the place of thinking, as the simple fact is that Brussels is funding many of the supposedly independent observers at such conclaves. To expect critical thinking from “experts” whose financial imperatives revolve around keeping the EU’s mandarins happy is to expect too much.

At the first meeting, I found myself sitting on a panel with an American Wilsonian. He was representing the Democratic Party view of US relations with China, while I represented the Republican Party view. After a good discussion, questions came from the primarily European audience. The first revolved around the fact that the questioner wanted to know where the EU fits into the strategic picture of the Sino-American cold war, as wasn’t it so that Brussels must be counted as the world’s third great superpower?

Even though it was a Zoom call, my Wilsonian counterpart — whom I agreed with over almost nothing — and I exchanged ironic glances. Finally, for all his innate pro-EU inclinations, he brutally told the questioner the truth: The EU, while a trading superpower and a huge internal market, simply doesn’t play at the global strategic level as a great power (let alone a superpower), as it is less and less economically dynamic, is endemically politically divided and is militarily (other than France) impotent. In the shocked silence that followed, I quipped that I wanted to cede all my time to my Democratic counterpart for having the temerity to tell the brainwashed audience the truth — that the EU simply isn’t a great power.

If this is so, my second think tank meeting focused on the nub of the problem: A mercantilist, neutralist, isolationist-leaning Germany. In standard fashion, the German think tank denizen sent to debate me made all the usual excuses; while I am right to be critical, Germany (in that most galling of phrases) “would now do its homework,” easily overcoming a generation’s-worth of historical and empirical evidence to the contrary, and would decisively right its ship of state over the coming months.

Exasperated, and tired of the analytical lying at cocktail parties, I brutally interjected that the reality is that Germany would do nothing over the next year and change nothing, as its people prefer their cosseted lifestyle (and genteel decline) to the real sacrifices that would be involved in paying for a relevant military and crafting a common European foreign policy. I was met by hateful stares and a sullen, unchallenged silence, for what could they say, given the last decades of Berlin’s holiday from history?

Crises intellectually clarify, even for the most obtuse observers. Two recent challenges to Brussels from the world’s revisionist powers, China and Russia, ought to make plain that wishful thinking has taken the place of facts-based political risk assessments of an EU that is so much less than meets the eye.

First, tiny Lithuania — to the fury of Beijing — has decided to favor Taiwan in the crafting of its foreign and economic policy. China responded by putting pressure on Vilnius and defying the EU, particularly Germany, to do anything about this. While in the past few days, the EU launched a legal action against China at the World Trade Organization (WTO) after Beijing restricted or blocked imports from and exports to Lithuania, Berlin responded precisely as I would have predicted — that is, in a neutralist, isolationist, mercantilist manner — and not as EU cheerleaders would have it. Glumly aware, as an export-driven superpower, that China, for the fifth year in a row, is its largest export destination, Germany is pressing Brussels to tone down its criticism of China and to de-escalate the controversy.

Major German companies, particularly carmakers heavily dependent on trade with Beijing, have warned Vilnius that they will pull out of Lithuania unless the dispute is quickly settled. For, despite all its usual blather about how much the EU means to it, when push comes to shove and with its now economic interests on the line, Berlin has seen to its commercial interests  at the expense of European unity.

Likewise, over the Ukraine crisis, in a basic way President Vladimir Putin is airing his grievances. As such, in the earliest days of the crisis, Moscow met with the US, NATO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, not with the EU.

Why should he? In practical terms, Moscow met great power to superpower (the US), with the world’s most important military alliance (NATO) and with the largest gathering of transatlantic states (the OSCE). The EU simply does not play a major role in strategic terms; for Putin to prioritize meeting with Brussels would have been a colossal waste of time. While a shocked Brussels looked impotently on (and I am shocked that they are shocked), Putin made it clear that, in a crisis, the EU simply does not have the relevance its cheerleaders dream of. Nor is this state of affairs likely to change.

Instead of swallowing comforting, if delusional, fairy tales about its far-flung importance, it is time to analytically shout from the rooftops the obvious: That the EU emperor simply isn’t wearing any clothes.

This post was originally published in Arab News.