![]() |
From border controls to a European army
European Geostrategy | 21:37, 14 March 2010
By James Rogers and Luis Simón
• GEOSTRATEGY LEADS TO IMPERIALISM
It doesn’t have to. It is true that geostrategy is about the exercise of power over particularly critical spaces on the Earth’s surface; about crafting a political presence over the international system. It is aimed at enhancing one’s security and prosperity; about making the international system more prosperous; about shaping rather than being shaped. A geostrategy is about securing access to certain trade routes, strategic bottlenecks, rivers, islands and seas. It requires an extensive military presence, normally coterminous with the opening of overseas military stations and the building of warships capable of deep oceanic power projection. It also requires a network of alliances with other great powers who share one’s aims or with smaller ‘lynchpin states’ that are located in the regions one deems important.
It is correct that many geostrategies have in the past been built on imperial conquest: countries have annexed land to provide themselves with the means to protect or extend what they have already got. Britain, France and Spain conquered countries near their trade routes to protect and extend them; and Germany and the United States annexed land to acquire more living space. But these all turned out to be costly enterprises which were often ruinous. Imperialism is a particular kind of geostrategy, but not all geostrategies are imperialist. In fact, a good geostrategy should counsel against imperialism, which is extremely costly in terms of both moral courage and matériel.
• THE EUROPEAN UNION IS A ‘PEACE PROJECT’; IT DOES NOT NEED A GEOSTRATEGY
Mumbo jumbo. The European Union was a ‘peace project’. But peace is not a neutral, politically free, concept. A balance of power always lies behind peace. For most of the nineteenth century, world peace was underpinned by British hegemony – it was the age of the Pax Britannica. From the second half of the twentieth century Western Europe was part of a broader geographical area, encompassing the Western hemisphere and much of the Eurasian rimland, which was governed by the Pax Americana. Even if the European Union did not have a traditional geostrategy, its very existence was underpinned by one – that of the United States.
But since the end of the Cold War the European Union has come to play an increasingly active geopolitical role, particularly in the European continent. Enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe became a most effective form of geostrategy, facilitating the expansion of the European Union to cover most of our continent, increasing our security, prosperity and entrenching our values. Enlargement consolidated order where there could have been chaos; it brought prosperity where there could have been poverty and stagnation. It worked; it was a success.
Today, however, the European Union’s geostrategy needs to go beyond the European continent. It needs to develop a worldwide focus. A global geostrategy implies that Brussels must develop an understanding of which parts of the world are central to the European interest and which are less so; of where Europeans must focus their resources to uphold their interests and where they should not.
• EUROPEAN GEOSTRATEGY HAS BEEN MADE REDUNDANT BY GLOBALISATION
No. Globalisation has not made geostrategy redundant; in fact, globalisation has amplified the need for a European geostrategy. Why? The reason is simple: the European economy has become more globalised than at any other period in history; goods and services come to us via numerous maritime routes, air routes, energy pipelines and fibre optic cables. If any of these get severed, our economy will suffer, meaning that we as Europeans will suffer.
Globalisation also brings the domestic problems of foreign countries to our shores, which causes trouble for us in the form of extremism and terrorism; globalisation also elevates the importance of the planetary ecosystem, on whose stability we all depend. Globalisation has thrown back at us as many issues as it solves.
• GEOSTRATEGY IS ABOUT THE EXERCISE OF (HARD) POWER
So what? As Robert Gates, the United States’ Secretary of State for Defence, recently asserted, many Europeans have grown very timid about the exercise of power; some treat it almost like an aberration, something so repulsive that it should not even be mentioned in polite conversation. But European power provides the means to amplify European security, prosperity and, ultimately, provide us with the ability to undergird European values like freedom, democracy and social justice – both at home and abroad. These are the aims of geostrategy.
Insofar as they ever existed, gone are the days where Europeans could simply sit back and lead by example; when we were so overwhelmingly powerful normatively that others would accept our vision and fall into line. The European vision of society and international relations is no longer universal and is challenged more and more by the visions of our competitors. This is the main lesson Europeans must learn from the Copenhagen Summit in 2009.
• EUROPEANS HAVE ALTERNATIVE WAYS TO INFLUENCE GLOBAL POLITICS
Do they? Seriously? Many still seem to believe that there remain alternatives to the European Union’s emergence as a global power. Some hope that the United States will remain forever committed to our security and defend our interests and values globally. Others pray that the world is destined to become a better place, where nation will come to speak peace unto nation, through strengthened international structures. Others continue to think nationally when even the biggest of the European Union’s Member States have become too small for today’s world – let alone tomorrow’s.
But hope, prayers and clinging to the past do not a good strategy make. Less so at a time when the United States’ commitment to European stability will be put to the test by the challenges it faces elsewhere. The truth of the matter is that we Europeans have nowhere else to run: in a world that will be dominated by great economic and military superpowers, the European Union is the only way forward. Only by pulling our weight together through a European framework can we effectively gain the thrust and velocity needed to exert our power in the twenty-first century – and guarantee our geographic security, prosperity and values at that.
European Geostrategy | 11:51, 12 March 2010

The President of the European Council stated in his speech to the College of Europe that the European Union needed ‘collective fleet action’ – greater foreign policy co-ordination – but what form should this take? What matters and what does not?
European Geostrategy | 16:36, 10 March 2010

With the Treaty of Lisbon implemented, the new High Representative in power, and movement over the establishment of the European External Action Service, has the time come for a European Union Strategic Defence Review?
European Geostrategy | 1:19, 7 March 2010

The Falkland Islands have once again become a diplomatic storm-in-a-teacup between Argentina and Britain. But what is the geopolitical significance of the Falkland Islands? And why is it in the European interest that Britain keep hold of them?
European Geostrategy | 13:44, 26 February 2010

President Herman Van Rompuy is often poked as a figure of fun. But does his first speech on foreign and security policy reflect a closet Machiavellian, plotting and strategising to flesh out the European interest?
European Geostrategy | 22:42, 24 February 2010

Much has recently been said about the creation of a permanent military headquarters for the European Union. In this article, we explore the reasons as to why such an institution is desirable, for the sake of the improvement of European military command and control.
Jaanika Erne | 1:13, 19 February 2010

When I attended the course “United Nations and International Law”, read by Lauri Mälksoo at the University of Tartu, we were shown a film about international conflict resolution, the UN, and the global politics. Unfortunately, I do not remember the name of the film, although I believe that it is quite a well-known one. Though cluster bombs were not [...]
European Geostrategy | 0:51, 18 February 2010

With the rise of an increasingly multipolar world, the time has come for Europeans to invoke their maritime geography once again and look beyond their borders to concentrate on the wider world. The European Union needs to form an immensely powerful navy, which can be used to circulate maritime power around the world and undergird the success of the European economy.
European Geostrategy | 20:43, 6 January 2010
The last decade was very eventful. The age was defined by Islamist terrorism, military intervention and economic globalisation, and often seemed to be running on fast forward. What will happen in the next ten years? Here are ten predictions!
European Geostrategy | 18:26, 28 December 2009

Russia is keen to buy a powerful amphibious warship from France to assert its geostrategic interests around its borders. If France accepts the offer, how will this impact on Russian-European relations, especially in light of Russia’s intentions in the Baltic and Black Sea regions?
European Geostrategy | 12:00, 15 December 2009

What does Afghanistan (and by implication, Pakistan) mean for Europeans? Is the threat posed by both merely transnational in nature, or does it also contain a geopolitical dimension? And how should Europeans respond? What conceptual changes are required to make the European Union more effective in this region?
About
The multi-user blog site Ideas on Europe provides an impartial, unbiased platform where individuals can engage in informed analysis, comment, and debate. The site is administered by UACES, whose membership base of over 1000 academics, practitioners and research students provides an instant audience for the site.