Why Europe Won't Run the 21st Century

Felicia Whatley

Why Europe Will (Not) Run the 21^st Century

Book by Mark Leonard

Professor Hormoz Shahdadi

The book “Why Europe Will Run the 21^st Century” by Mark Leonard begins with a cheer to the EU in saying that within 50 years they have moved closer to peace than war. Perhaps it is the U.S. involvement or occupation of various nations in Europe that has forced Europe to calm down in their own plights to take over other nations. It still stands true today that in the old “powers” of Europe there is a U.S. military presence that takes away arms or militarizes certain cities and towns such as in Germany or imposes sanctions such as that on Russia, that prevents them from building too big of their own military.

Of course there is also the economic rule and for awhile 9/11 and its after effects have crippled the U.S. economy while the Euro holds stronger and it in that one can make the case that Europe will run the 21^st century. And are there justifiable wars like Mark Leonard explains. He is critical of the Bush administration and the War in Iraq, but is clear to state that he supports the intervention in Rwanda and Darfur as well as the genocide wars in Bosnia and Kosovo.

It is easy to criticize when someone else will clean up the mess and as long as European money is invested in something more justifiable then the U.S. will continue to struggle globally, economically and militarily and Europe can take the high road. “It is American power that like a ’56 Chevy, seemed to have passed its prime. A classic Cold War model American centralized , militarized supremacy became so overwhelming that it defeated everything, including itself,”(x, Leonard). So he goes on to say that the confidence and arrogance of America leads to its own demise where Americans would think they have what it takes to dominate the 21^st century. So it is a war of superpowers, as Leonard would imply, and as hubris brought down the Greeks and the Germans, it could happen to the U.S. as well.

And as the U.S. will likely deteriorate the Europeans will flourish. I feel the need to remind Leonard that our foreign aid and trade has kept many struggling nations afloat. Is that arrogant too? But how can Leonard throw in China and India and compare them to the U.S.? True capitalism has made each one of these nations competitive, but both are dependent on foreign trade. If it wasn’t copied by the Chinese than it probably wasn’t worth inventing in the first place, but Leonard eludes to the idea that China and India will be their own demise like the U.S. I am not sure how he can make such a comparison. Is success punishable or simply a reason for other nations to hate them? Competition is what destroys communism and dictatorships. Perhaps Leonard realizes that China and India are an economic threat to the U.S. and European nations, although I catch his earnest liberal criticism.

Leonard seems to worship the EU in both its efforts to modernize European countries and keep the peace. Many European powers rejected membership but later found that its importance was necessary. Turkey is tossed into that ordeal but finds sovereignty and more significance as a member. I would not agree with Leonard to say that the EU was more important than the United Nations or NATO; it just simply serves a different purpose and its attendance provides access regionally, globally and economically.  “Yet, somehow the fact that all European countries need the European Union to succeed has meant that the European project has emerged stronger from every setback” (xiv, Leonard). Well it is an international organization not a lifeboat, Leonard.

Leonard addresses that we need to understand hard and soft power, and overall what power really is. The U.S. is paranoid that every independent nation could be an enemy and that the “American Empire” is dwindling because of this. And in this supposed selfishness the EU grows stronger. “The lonely superpower can bribe, bully, or impose its will almost anywhere in the world, but when its back is turned it potency wanes” (3).  So his solution is for everyone to join the EU to build a new European century. That seems very egocentric, and funny but I remember that the U.S. was once criticized for being an isolationist and Europe as being overly dominating. And I am not sure I understand what Leonard means by Europe being a “transformative power” other than it taking a negative situation and making it positive, and perhaps that is true for today but riots in France, oppression in Russia still, and lack of current nationalism in Germany speaks louder than “transformative power”.

The European Union is about enhancing rather than destroying national identities, states Leonard. But can you have one without the other? Brussels is seen by Leonard as the opposite of an imperial capital, yet the imperialistic Brits still reign in Ireland and Scotland, snuffing the independent national identities. Perhaps the EU can be seen as keeping the peace in all of Great Britain and its attempt in much of its colonies, but according to whom? There they were not exerting “soft power” as the colonists that hit the shores of “New England” did not as well, whether it is visible or invisible.

The EU is seen as a decentralized network where each country has a chance to cast its vote and say what it needs to say, according to Leonard. Some fear that it will be so divided that is could collapse, but I think the desire for diplomacy is the drive and the reason why the EU is successful. But it is not the determining factor for why Europe may run the world in the 21^st century, which seems to be the theme of the book.

Nation states invention came from Europe—deemed a positive and a negative thing. The intent was to stop any other from becoming too powerful of an empire. “The fierce competition between them spurred them on to develop the most advanced technology in the world, and allowed a continent that was a sleepy backwater to overtake empires of the East and assume global dominance,” (27). The problem was the imbalance of powers led to world wars as the hope to stop one country from becoming a hegemony was inevitable.   

France and Germany were very indicative about not getting involved in the war in Iraq. Leonard explains that these actions proved that the Atlanticism was a success, as well as the opposition to preventable war somehow shined brightly on Europe and the EU. “The Bush Administration has used the crisis in Iraq to show that Europe’s obsession with international law is a sign of it terminal weakness...international law is Europe’s weapon of choice in its campaign to reshape the war,” (36). That sounds like an excuse to complain and do nothing.

There have been plenty of terrorist attacks on Europe, including the train bombing in Madrid in 2004 that was not prevented by international law. When diplomacy fails, hard power happens. To ignore such issues does not spread democracy and peace. Perhaps, Leonard is cheering that for a war that was “unjustifiable” go France and Germany for enforcing conscious objection.  This kind of power is inefficient because it is always imposed on unwilling subjects from outside, rather than chancing the wiring of society from the inside, states Leonard.

There was much EU and NATO involvement in deployments to Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Central Asia, the Gulf and Africa in 2003 with about 90,000 troops especially including British troops during that year. The push for UN peace-keeping forces was needed.  “These troops are not settled in bases around the world to defend pipelines, economic interests, or the balance of power. Instead they are almost all operating under the flag of the United Nations to support humanitarian goals,” (62).  Leonard felt this marked a time of instability for the EU. Yes, these wars spread the superpower’s troops thin and had a detrimental affect on the U.S.’s economy. We all watched the dollar plummet and the Euro rise. Europe felt the pinch of unemployment; it was not isolated to just being a United States’ infection of the economy and some would still argue that the recession was very close to being labeled a depression. If Leonard made the solid argument that the Euro’s value was indeed evidence that Europe would rule the 21^st century, he would have been in agreement with many economists.

Leonard sheds light on the fact that most of the 25 countries in the EU spend about 180 billion a year on defense verses the fact that the U.S. spends about 330 billion a year on defense spending. He says it in a way that means those countries are comparable but the difference is clear as are priorities. The United States can deploy over 400,000 ground troops verse the EU’s 85,000. That is a clear indication of America showing their cards for a hard power and global hegemony and even Leonard agrees that Europe does not “get enough bang for the buck”.

Ah yes and a better quality of life and growing European economies have shown that Europeans get a chance to enjoy life with more holiday and vacation time and wages growing more so in Europe. “For the individual worker in Europe, wages have grown more than for his or her counterpart in the United States,” (71). While the GDP has risen about the same, it is interesting that Leonard explains how even with a growing economy in the U.S. that household incomes dropped by an average of 1.5 thousand a year. That is awful. But the tax structures are different and not exactly addressed in this book. It all sounds better with France having the most appealing healthcare in the world, but at what cost to its citizens?

But he does address that the countries with the highest welfare states have the lowest unemployment such as Denmark, Ireland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands. That is amazing. I recall working with NATO in a Bosnia deployment in 2003, alongside the Danes, and an officer explaining to me how most of Denmark did not work during the summer. Instead, summer was a national vacation time. I could only imagine how neat that must be. Perhaps, Europe will not rule the 21^st century, but they do know how to relax, as the battle for the almighty dollar in the U.S. is an obsession.