Features                   

The emergence of an increasingly post American world along with the imminent collapse of the last 20 years of intense American hegemony is taking place right beneath the world’s feet. Fareed Zakaria substantiates this point by proposing that: "The world is moving from anger to indifference, from anti-Americanism to post-Americanism. The fact that new powers are more strongly asserting their interests is the reality of the post-American world. It also raises the political conundrum of how to achieve international objectives in a world of many actors, state and non-state." Whilst it is acknowledged that the many upcoming actors will match and possibly overtake the US in years to come, it is clear that the key actor, China, is nearer, than thought, to completing a successful audition for the remaining blockbuster events that will be produced for the next generation, thereby perhaps creating a quasi-monopoly on all future auditions.

This epic shift of power from the settled giant of the west to the emerging giant of the east means inevitable room at the table for the discussion of 21st century challenges and affairs such as economic co-operation, climate change, energy security, migration, terrorism or engaging in the deployment of military might. Such factors are likely to be steered by the lead of these two nations, a so called G2 that, while still fraught with differing ideologies, will be the joint paradigm that the rest of the world will consult, rely on or emulate.

China seemingly wishes not to be considered in terms of a perceived upcoming hegemony: "China will never seek hegemony or engage in military expansion now or in the future, no matter how developed it becomes," but rather, to be seen as maintaining a strategic partnership with the US and the EU and a multi-polar world with other countries, as the more poles there are, the less the US will be able to dominate global politics and economics. The US now looks toward a pragmatic and stable partnership to deal with world affairs while the EU prefers a multilateral approach, a concept engrained into the DNA of its politicians with both powers. As the new world order takes shape, it would appear that the EU remains the hobbled giant, sandwiched between the two colossal heavyweights of world direction and is now having to decide how it intends to be an effective partner or whether it will support bilateral relations with the two countries as a single entity or individual countries.

In other words, what will Europe’s role be going forward?

The EU needs to critically decide whether it is going to act as a single entity or otherwise, helping to dispel Henry Kissinger’s "whom do you talk to?" remark. Most countries making up the 27 EU bloc, pride themselves on having a special relationship with the US as well as bilateral relations with China, none more greater than the G3; the UK, France and Germany. A strong voice in unison is preferred as opposed to a fragmented one as this would deem it to be more grounded. This would strengthen the argument for the prospective G2 to embrace multilateralism and be committed to the rule of law while supporting the international institutions and treaties in place. The Treaty of Lisbon which came into force in December 2009 with its new head of the European Commission and EU high representative for foreign and security affairs, inter alia purports to do such a thing. Though only one hundred days old, there still remains overriding bureaucracies. Such an institutional problem has already culminated in the decision of the US president not to attend the EU-US Summit, Madrid in May 2010. This is a move that cannot be seen as the way to commence a critical path towards singularity and unanimity in voice and thought.

Europe will also have to present itself as a strategic and active partner who wishes to be consulted on pressing matters, security, trade to name a few. If given the chance to explain things properly to both nations, it is likely that burgeoning mistakes may be avoided which of itself, could lead to disharmony among the triangle, US, China and Europe, while further weakening its image as a viable institution as well as confirmation of its waning effect and archaic presence. Also, Europe must be able to take, and perhaps act as arbiter, strong independent positions for existing and seemingly paralytic Sino-US problems such as Iran, Taiwan, Tibet, (recent) cyber-attacks, intellectual property rights, currency depreciation etc. With regards to the European arms embargo on China, the need for the singular voice becomes even more pronounced as to the stance it chooses to take in the future collectively as opposed to the glaringly obvious differences between the G3 and the rest of Europe. The continuum of opined difference in Europe subjects it to further divide and rule tactics currently deployed by China. A louder voice and more effective measures taken on human rights will also be needed as shown recently by China’s refusal to stay the execution of a mentally disturbed Briton in December 2009 for instance. Condemnation was swift, but it remained little more than that. Europe will need to hammer home the point that the nation will need to play by the international rules of engagement especially as a rising power.

No nation of the 27 European bloc envisages a smooth ride in G2 relations over the next 10 to 20 years, but it is that Europe is centrally placed to be the middle ground needed to diffuse any ticking time bombs that could be set to explode. To be effective, it will have to focus on issues where it knows its own minds with the right cards to play. This means it will need to build on its existing institutions and capabilities to increase effectiveness while continuing to strengthen international rules of law and multilateral organisations. Though a gradual process, it may be then that the hobbled giant would be on course to cure its 25+ year limp.