LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Autumn 2009

by Dieter Mahncke

Sir,

David Howell says that charting Europe’s future in a fast-changing world “is akin to navigating a storm-tossed vessel in the worst possible sea conditions.” His argument seems to be that Europe will not be a single vessel but a flotilla of small governmental and other boats and that raises an obvious question. Will the European Union be better off divided or working together “centrally or peripherally as circumstances alter?” Or should it unite in the face of the new challenges and speak with one influential voice?

Howell finds the prospect of a united Europe unrealistic. He simply takes it as given that it will not happen. Unity is also presented by him as undesirable for three main reasons. First, Howell says that “size no longer equates with power”. This argument is, of course, essential for his conclusion, since ex unitate vires (From Unity, Strength) is one of the main arguments in favour of a united Europe. Modern asymmetric warfare certainly supports the theory that size no longer translates into power. But does this example – or the decline of Western dominance – mean that size and power are no longer relevant at all? What about the new ‘heavyweights’ as Howell calls them: China, India, Brazil and others? To understand the true picture, I think a different question should be asked, namely how size and power are set up and how they translate into influence. It is difficult to argue that a united Europe would be less able to exert influence than a disaggregated one.

Howell’s second argument is that the “international pattern is no longer primarily government-to-government”. This is an exaggeration. Despite the “countless groups, professions and interests” that play a role in shaping international relations today, governments will remain pre-eminent for the foreseeable future. Nor in Europe are we talking about failing states. Hence each state will be more likely to wield influence as part of the larger EU than on its own. This is true already, and not just for the smaller member states.

The third argument put forward by Howell is that advances in technology will have “a profound impact on how power is distributed internationally.” This can already be witnessed, but Howell does not share the assumption that a united Europe will be better able to deal with the challenge. The development of nuclear power, he argues optimistically, will soon make Europe largely independent of, say, Russian oil and gas. And besides, the energy issue takes second place to more important questions such as the Middle East.

Nobody would deny that the post-Cold War world is messy and complicated. It is also evident that Europe’s world view must be “flexible, agile and…realistically attuned”. But David Howell’s view that a bunch of small and medium-sized states would be better able to deal with these ‘stormy seas’ than a united Europe is unconvincing.