Alphen,
Netherlands. 13 January. “Act that your
principle of action might safely be made a law for the whole world”, so advised
eighteenth century German philosopher and father of Universalism, Immanuel
Kant. Kant is the darling Philosopher of
the EU elite which believes that an entirely European concept of international law
can replace power. Is that possible?
A new
report from European Geostrategy (www.europeangeostrategy.org)
seems to suggest that Europeans in principle still enjoy sufficient state power
to be influential political realists.
In “Audit of Power” the group cites state power as a “productive force”
based on “cultural pull, diplomatic influence, economic strength and military
reach”. The report concludes that in
2014 the United States is still the world’s most powerful state followed by Britain.
Thereafter in order of power come France,
China, Russia and Japan with Germany a lowly seventh, just above Australia and
Canada.
The report’s
conclusions contradict my new book “Little Britain? Twenty-First Century
Strategy for a Middling European Power (www.amazon.com).
My book uses CIA figures to conclude that Britain is at best the fifth or sixth
most powerful state in the world (at least on paper) and in rapid and
exaggerated decline.
One event
this week helps to explain the friction. Two groups of left-wing lawyers have submitted
a 250 page dossier to the International Criminal Court citing systematic abuse
of Iraqi detainees by British politicians and military chiefs. Their aim is as much political as legal; to
replace state power with international law and thus prevent direct action by
Western states.
The dossier highlights the
dilemmas Europeans today – the balance to be struck between law and power and
its locus – national or supranational. The
EU is a consequence of Europe’s many power struggles over the ages. Indeed, so many of Europe’s leaders act today
like reformed power junkies – afraid that one ‘puff’ of state power might turn
Europeans back into addicts of state power, with legalism the only antidote.
Europe’s leaders are
retreating into a definitively ‘rules-based approach’ to international politics
in which law is progressively replacing power in the form of ‘universal’ EU ‘laws’
that go way beyond the intent of treaties.
In so doing Europe is abandoning traditional concepts of state sovereignty
in favour of pan European rights. The
problem is that because Europe no longer sets the rules of the global road
legalism detaches European security from world security. So, whilst European states might on paper
look powerful by paralysing action with legalism Europe punches far below their
international weight.
Legalism explains the
friction between European Geostrategy’s rankings and my new book. By trying to remove the balance of state
power from Europe the EU has removed Europeans from global power reality. My book cites Britain which more than any
other member-state gold-plates EU rules and thus has drastically reduced London’s
ability to run Britain let alone influence others both within the EU and
without.
An attempt to create a
rules-based international system happened once before in the immediate
aftermath of World War One with the creation of the League of Nations. It was also based on Kantian notions of
Universalism and also sought the replacement of power by law. The reason it failed was that no effective
sanction existed to punish defection. Instead
states were to be judged by the “court of public opinion”. In 1939
the League’s international order collapsed in the face of Nazi Germany’s power
perversion which haunts Europe to this day.
Today, Brazil, Russia,
India, China and many others are challenging the world-view of the European
elite. They share a very classical view
of the world based on state power and the need to compete for their respective
interests. And, in spite of the rhetoric
of the Obama administration, the US also shares much of that view. Indeed, implicit in last week’s attack by
former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates on the Obama administration is a
Democrat/Republican split over where state power ends and law begins in
international relations.
If the West is to
survive into the twenty-first century its essential mission will be the search
for a new balance between political realism and idealism. The future of the EU, NATO and the
transatlantic relationship are all dependent on such a balance being
stuck. Equally, for the West to prevail
Europeans must first stop turning their noses up at power because Kant’s
paradox is that if “purpose of action” is to become law then it must first be
informed by power.
If Europeans continue
to replace power with rules and laws then once power predators will render
themselves power prey. Security in the twenty-first century world will
not be achieved by Europeans simply abrogating power. Rather, Europeans should better heed the words
of seventeenth century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes who famously said
that, “Covenants without the Sword are but words and of no strength at all”.
Julian
Lindley-French
