Lecture
Details
Europe’s Role in the World
by
Wolfgang Schäuble,
Member of the German Bundestag
(Speech was scheduled to be given on September 18, 2003,
but was not delivered due to Hurricane Isabel)
I
Not so long ago Robert Kagan chose to compare the US and Europe with Mars and Venus. The particular time of day tempts me to start with a closer astronomical analysis before I enter the realm of foreign politics, so please forgive me to take you on a quick tour to the world of planets or better: stars. A key problem with Kagan’s analysis from an astronomers’ point of view is that Mars and Venus are not in opposition. Quite the opposite: They are dependent on each other and their orbits run in concentric circles. If they both clash, another planet also happens to be in imminent danger which is the earth. Mars and Venus are dependent on each other, even if they are rather different on the outside; the planet Mars prefers larger orbits, while Venus - as you may recall - is closer to the sun.
To switch from my star search back to the field of foreign policy and transatlantic relations: In contrast to Kagan’s view I strongly believe that Europe and America, despite all their differences, are dependent on each other. Europe may currently struggle to contribute its fair share to international security, but that does not make it a less relevant partner for the US – not even in the short run, although the current debates in this country may lead to this conclusion.
I do not deny that the image Europe projects could be more attractive. At the moment, European foreign policy shows little sign of unity or a common line. There is a lack of both clarity and reliability. The European Union’s behaviour appears ever more complex and difficult to comprehend. It is constantly enlarging itself. It puts one thing under the competence of the Union, but then not another. Who has got the time to keep up to date on all this? For some of you, it may be some small comfort if I tell you that currently, in Europe too, none of us is quite sure what is really happening in the European Union. But at this point I would also like to say that no one is quite sure what is really happening in America either: how it wants to shape its role in the world; even whether all forces are actually pulling in the same direction when it comes to decisions about war and peace; and how the USA sees the prospects for its relations with Europe and the non-Western world.
So there is certainly a lack of clarity on both sides of the Atlantic, which is also an indication that we are making too little effort to understand each other. This statement may sound simple, but I regard it as one of the crucial challenges for our future. America and Europe should withstand the temptation to simply sit back and accept that their interests, intentions and political perspectives will diverge ever further. We must make the effort to put our relationship in order, develop understanding for each other and reach a common view of things as far as possible. Together we form the West, and I am convinced that the West will remain the most important framework for Europe’s role in the world in the future as well.
II
I want to explain this by sharing a few thoughts with you. Of course, they relate mainly to Europe, but they also touch on America.
-We Europeans have realised that, almost 15 years after the end of the Cold War, we must try to concentrate less on ourselves and more on the world and its crises. It is true that we Europeans didn´t succeed in getting the Balkans under control ten years ago. Now, however, we can no longer afford to tie up such a large proportion of the transatlantic community’s security resources in Europe. The greater challenges to our security and future stability will come from elsewhere. We are becoming much more accustomed to thinking about what is going on beyond our continent. And we are doing this as Europe, not just as Great Britain or France.
No one observing Europe from the outside should overlook the fact that three very profound changes are currently being prepared that will fundamentally change Europe’s image in the world as early as next year. The enlargement of the European Union will finally put an end to the artificial division of our continent that existed for so many decades. A European constitution will strengthen the coherence of the Union and, among other things, create a real European foreign minister. And finally, we will be taking significant steps to consolidate our common defence capacity. The political effort needed to negotiate all this between 15, and soon 25, sovereign states, each with its own history and traditions, should not be underestimated.
-As part of the West, Europe is facing a great challenge, and that demands even those Europeans who, for good reasons, tend to behave with greater restraint. Europe must not shy away from formulating global policies. As members of the Western world, we must collectively come to terms with the terrible contradictions with which the non-Western world approaches us. In many parts of the world, people yearn for our Western level of freedom. At the same time, it is precisely this liberal way of life that is the object of hatred and the most ruthless opposition. In this respect, the West is perceived by others as a coherent whole. And – this is an important point – by the West I mean not just Americans and Europeans, but all those who feel attached to our open, liberal societies, whether they come from Turkey, Russia, the Southern Mediterranean, South America or South East Asia. It must give us all, Europeans and Americans, cause for much thought that there are ever more – not ever fewer – areas of the world where a declaration of belief in our values and ideals and of partnership with us is becoming a deadly risk.
-The targets of the many terrible terror attacks of recent years and months show that, in essence, they are not just directed against Americans or their allies or the United Nations, but against the West. We have a shared destiny. For this reason we must work together to find ways of dealing with the concrete dangers we confront. We must decide what military strength we can afford, how great a commitment we can make to development policy and what measures will actually enhance our common security in response to which threats. It would be a fatal mistake if one or other of the parties were to think they could withdraw from the line of fire and therefore abandon their responsibilities as well. It would be just as fatal if they thought they could save themselves the effort involved in reaching a strategic consensus. Neither hasty unilateral action nor a categorical refusal to get involved will improve things – quite the contrary.
-We Europeans too are finally summoning the political energy to draw up a strategically coherent European security concept, not something that is very easy for fifteen countries to do. I ascribe the highest priority to the European security strategy, which should be finalised this winter, but believe that its real value will only become apparent if European and American ideas can be successfully combined in a joint strategy. Of course, this also means that the American security strategy, in which, incidentally, Europe is hardly featured, should demonstrate a certain adaptability. If a substantive transatlantic debate can be conducted on this question, the West will have gained a great deal. The central point will be to establish clarity about decision-making mechanisms for the evaluation of when exactly which kind of action or measure is needed, and to organise this decision making in a manner that is compatible with international law.
-Following September 11, there was a strong will in Europe and throughout the world to put joint security arrangements in place. This resulted in the coalition against transnational terrorism, with which Secretary of State Colin Powell achieved one of the greatest diplomatic successes of the last few decades. However, the action against Saddam Hussein’s terrorist regime has seen this desire for joint action waning – on both sides and with very serious consequences. Today we all know that the West’s failure to maintain unity in the United Nations Security Council has cost us an enormous amount of credibility around the world and must not be allowed to happen again.
And we all know that the West cannot afford to let Iraq or Afghanistan collapse – The Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi chose the words of the Roman philosopher Horace to describe why terrorism and the failure of states are more than a regional problem: “If the neighbour’s wall is on fire, your house is in great danger.”
In Iraq, I consider it absolutely essential for the United Nations to play a considerably stronger role. American and European diplomacy must succeed in finding an approach that neither undermines the authority of America and its allies nor puts in question the general positions of the many democracies that doubt the legitimacy of the campaign against Saddam Hussein’s regime. Each further step should be judged by the extent to which it improves the security situation at the same time as giving the political transition process greater credibility. None of those responsible should think that they can manage without the whole spectrum of expertise on the Islamic and Arabic world that the West has at its disposal - not just in Washington - but in Paris, London, Warsaw and Berlin as well. And we should work together to involve regional states, who are already in the process of drawing up concepts for the resolution of the situation.
As far as the German government’s policy on Iraq is concerned, I would like to make just one remark: The categorical refusal to get involved in any capacity has not increased, but reduced our independence and scope for action. Today, the German government is more dependent on America when taking key foreign policy decisions than it was a year ago.
-It is more and more evident that the large number of regional conflicts and problems demanding our attention at the same time have developed such momentum and become so dramatic that neither America nor Europe is capable of keeping them in check, let alone managing them:
Iran is one issue where the transatlantic partnership should prove its value again, supported by a constructive role on the part of Russia. Due to Iran’s nuclear policy and its influence on the various conflicts in the Middle East, close coordination between Europe, America and Russia in their dealings with Teheran may be the key to ensuring a positive future for this country. Apart from this, North Korea, the Middle East conflict, the situation in the Caucasus and in Africa will continue to keep us busy for a long time and will require united action from the West. A division of labour that allows different countries to assume different burdens would be a good way forward, but would demand a high degree of trust and desire for partnership on both sides. The strong French presence in the European interim peace keeping mission to Congo and the significant German commitment in Afghanistan point in this direction.
-Those who just a short time ago declared NATO to be irrelevant are no longer likely to repeat this today. The Alliance has succeeded in giving itself a global orientation and taking on responsibility accordingly. It is demonstrating this in Afghanistan and it could also do so in Iraq. If the formation of intervention forces on constant standby proves successful, the West will possess an excellent instrument with which to protect its security. We Europeans must strengthen the Alliance with our European units, including our capability to operate independently as well if necessary. We must take care that this does not give rise to competition, but that our resources are bundled sensibly. Otherwise, I fear that we – the West – may risk weakening ourselves as a result.
-If we want to secure peace and stability around the world, military strength must be combined with multilateral decision-making and a far-reaching codification of international relationships in law. However imperfect the United Nations may be, there is no better alternative in sight. If the Europeans and the Americans act intelligently, they will now seize the opportunity that currently exists to strengthen the UN. They will try to resolve problems and conflicts in this forum and by doing so combine the strength of the world´s most powerful democracy with the very special legitimacy of this global organisation.
-Under the conditions of globalisation, the long-term challenges for our joint security are the same for all of us in the West and elsewhere: I am not thinking only of transnational terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and failing states, but just as much of the urgent need to get a grip on global environmental problems. It will only be possible for all of us to benefit if we acknowledge the unavoidability of correcting our approach to the exploitation of the environment and the consumption of resources. We must all accept fair constraints and also take on a fair share of the burdens. I am thinking of how we can stop the proliferation of weapons, not just nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, but small arms as well; how we can master the gigantic drug problem and the devastating consequences of HIV/AIDS; how we can secure sufficient energy supplies for all, while at the same time ensuring equitable access to resources, partly as a way of preventing immense waves of migration.
The relatively prosperous West must respect the fact that different countries develop at different speeds. The West must find common concepts to promote the development of other societies in such a way that they are able to preserve their cultural identities. This is a task that we have inherited jointly and that the Western states cannot perform separately, and certainly not in competition with each other, but only through cooperation. With this, I have raised what I am convinced is the most important task faced by Europe and the West: We must perceive the non-Western world and its variety as an enrichment and use the opportunities presented by globalisation to maintain diversity. If the West strives to homogenise the non-Western world in its own image, it will fail.
III
-Europe is endeavouring to become fit for the future and capable of building partnerships. First of all, this means that we must accept our global tasks and put in place the necessary structures and resources. Europe needs greater willingness to reform if it is to integrate ten or more new member states into the European Union, and to modernise the structures on which its economic performance depends - structures that are sclerotic in many European countries. We can learn a gr eat deal from America in this field. A fundamentally positive attitude towards taking on challenges and resolving problems, but also flexibility, innovation and mobility characterise US society, which has always proved itself more adaptable and successful than any other. In this context, the EU must also succeed at last in reaching agreement on its final borders. Any such agreement must be rooted in ourselves, rooted in our understanding of our identity as Europe. It must not be a reaction to geopolitical moves made by others. Special forms of close partnership that serve our mutual interests should be found for certain countries that have some, but only a small amount of territory in Europe, like Turkey and Russia.
-For America, meeting the challenges of the future means understanding that, for all its power, it will only be accepted if it keeps the people of the Western world on its side and is able to persuade the people of the non-Western world not to oppose it. A great deal of strength will be needed to pull back a little, make up for the omissions of the past and take even more care to ensure credible respect is shown for other ways of life.
A lasting unilateral world order would be more of a risk for America than an advantage. America needs partners, and I see no better alternative than Europe as a stable, long-term partner. Ad-hoc coalitions assembled especially for each conflict require many times more energy and cannot replace the ties fostered by a community of values, unique in the world. However, America must accept Europe and its complexity, it must understand the strength and depth of our internal links, as well as our characteristic unity in diversity. For example, if America should think it must teach France a lesson, any such action would always be directed against the Germans as well, since we have extremely close relations with our neighbour.
If we succeed in combining American determination with European experience, we will have great opportunities to shape our relationship with the non-Western world in positive ways. Europe’s strength is the strength of its desire for political integration combined with consensus about the preservation, indeed the promotion of diversity. We Europeans have unity and diversity to offer and can only function if we practice tolerance and solidarity every day. These are the best qualifications under the conditions created by the globalisation of opportunities and risks. They will enable us to help mould the future image of the West – this is Europe’s task, its role in the world.
