Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 March 2018
Debates on “rising powers” and a possible end to the liberal international order mostly focus on two kinds of actors: the hegemon (the United States), privileged by the power distribution of yesteryear, and rising powers (notably China). Europe's curious position brings to light some intriguing dynamics of the emerging world order—nuances needed to capture a more differentiated future. This essay traces the threats and opportunities to Europe presented by the emerging order in four domains. In terms of overall power (polarity) and economics, far-reaching change registers but is rarely designated as threatening. In contrast, change regarding values (human rights and democracy especially) triggers more alarm. Finally, in the domain of institutions, change elicited a relative lack of concern prior to 2016, but worries have grown since then. For Europe, peaceful change primarily demands that rising powers rearticulate rather than confront classical Western values because, in contrast to the United States, there is little sense of loss in Europe in relation to the global structures of power and economics.
1 Wæver, Ole, “The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations,” International Organization 52, no. 4 (1998), pp. 687–727 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 The term “Europe” is used throughout the article as a designation for the complex constellation made up of the EU, European nation-states, Europe as a regional economy, Europeans as a population, and the “idea of Europe” more generally. When in some specific cases it is necessary to be more specific, I will use the appropriate term. Of course, all these forms of “Europe” are not always in sync and views within Europe are not always homogenous. However, in a big-picture analysis like the present, it is appropriate to treat Europe as single analytical object. Similarly, although concepts like “China” and “the United States” refer to conglomerates of polity, economics, people, and ideas, we nevertheless tend to accept the aggregate terms in those cases because there is an official voice for the polity, even though in reality they are loosely coupled wholes just as “Europe” is.
3 Acharya, Amitav, “After Liberal Hegemony: The Advent of a Multiplex World Order,” Ethics & International Affairs 31, no. 3 (2017), pp. 271–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Tang, Shiping, The Social Evolution of International Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 Wight, Martin, Systems of States (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1977)Google Scholar; and Buzan, Barry, An Introduction to the English School of International Relations: The Societal Approach (Cambridge: Polity, 2014)Google Scholar.
5 Egbert Jahn, Pierre Lemaitre, and Ole Wæver, “European Security: Problems of Research on Non-Military Aspects,” Copenhagen Papers no. 1 (Copenhagen: Centre for Peace and Conflict Research, 1987); and Hettne, Björn, Regionalism and Interregional Relations (Gothenburg: Padrigu Papers, 1988)Google Scholar.
6 Kristensen, Peter Marcus, “After Abdication: America Debates the Future of Global Leadership,” Chinese Political Science Review 2, no. 4 (2017), pp. 1–17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 See, respectively, Ikenberry, G. John, “The Rise of China and the Future of the West: Can the Liberal System Survive?” Foreign Affairs 87, no. 1 (2008), pp. 23–37 Google Scholar; and Zaborowski, Marcin, ed., Facing China's Rise: Guidelines for an EU Strategy, Chaillot Paper no. 94 (Paris: Institute for Security, 2006)Google Scholar.
8 Ikenberry, “The Rise of China and the Future of the West”; and Dunne, Tim and Flockhart, Trine, eds., Liberal World Orders (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Kissinger, Henry A., A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh and the Restoration of Peace, 1812–1822 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1957)Google Scholar.
10 The four categories—power/polarity, economics, values, and institutions—are distinct observation points, which means that concrete content can show up in several. Clearly, aggregate power has a strong economic component, and values matter to both. Nevertheless, we should distinguish between observing the world in terms of its power structure (military, economic, and all other forms of power aggregated) and looking at economics as a field for achieving economic aims, such as welfare. Thus, the power category should not be read narrowly as military power only.
11 Butterfield, Herbert, “The Balance of Power,” in Butterfield, Herbert and Wight, Martin, eds., Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics (London: Allen & Unwin, 1966), pp. 132–48Google Scholar; and Wæver, Ole, “International Leadership after the Demise of the Last Superpower: System Structure and Stewardship,” Chinese Political Science Review 2, no. 4 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 Ikenberry, G. John, America Unrivaled: The Future of the Balance of Power (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2002)Google Scholar; and Stephen M. Walt, “Keeping the World ‘Off-Balance’: Self-Restraint and U.S. Foreign Policy,” KSG Working Paper 00-013 (John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, October 2000).
13 Porter, Patrick, Sharing Power: Prospects for a U.S. Concert-Balance Strategy (Pennsylvania: Strategic Studies Institute and U.S. Army War College Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 Kagan, Robert, Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003)Google Scholar.
15 Huntington, Samuel P., “The Lonely Superpower,” Foreign Affairs 78, no. 2 (1999), pp. 35–49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Buzan, Barry and Wæver, Ole, Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
16 Quoted by Finamore, Salvatore, “Normative Differences in Chinese and European Discourses on Global Security: Obstacles and Opportunities for Cooperation,” Chinese Political Science Review 2, no. 2 (2017), pp. 170ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.
17 Denis, C. et al. , The Lisbon Strategy and the EU's Structural Productivity Problem (Brussels: European Commission Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs Publications, 2005)Google Scholar, ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/pages/publication_summary11040_en.htm; Borrás, Susana and Radaelli, Claudio M., eds., The Politics of the Lisbon Agenda: Governance Architectures And Domestic Usages Of Europe (Abingdon, U.K.: Routledge, 2012)Google Scholar; Tania Zgajewski and Kalila Hajjar, “The Lisbon Strategy: Which Failure? Whose Failure? And Why?” Egmont Paper 6 (Brussels: Royal Institute for International Relations [IRRI-KIIB] Academia Press, 2005); and Wim Kok, “Facing the Challenge: The Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Employment,” Report from the High Level Group Chaired by Wim Kok (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2004), ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/fp6-evidence-base/evaluation_studies_and_reports/evaluation_studies_and_reports_2004/the_lisbon_strategy_for_growth_and_employment__report_from_the_high_level_group.pdf.
18 Peter Müller, “‘The Germans Are Bad, Very Bad’,” Der Spiegel, May 26, 2017, www.spiegel.de/international/world/trump-in-brussels-the-germans-are-bad-very-bad-a-1149330.html.
19 Javier Solana, “European Security Strategy - A Secure Europe in a Better World” (Brussels: European Council, 2003); and Federica Mogherini, “Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe - A Global Strategy for the European Union's Foreign And Security Policy” (Brussels: European Union Global Strategy, 2016), euagenda.eu/publications/shared-vision-common-action-a-stronger-europe-a-global-strategy-for-the-european-union-s-foreign-and-security-policy.
20 Tocci, Nathalie, “From the European Security Strategy to the EU Global Strategy: Explaining the Journey,” International Politics 54, no. 4 (2017), pp. 487–502 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sven Biscop, “The EU Global Strategy: Realpolitik with European Characteristics,” Security Policy Brief No. 75 (June 2016), Egmont Institute, Brussels, www.egmontinstitute.be/content/uploads/2016/06/SPB75.pdf?type=pdf; Smith, Karen E., “A European Union Global Strategy for a Changing World?” International Politics 54, no. 4 (2017), pp. 503–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mälksoo, Maria, “From the ESS to the EU Global Strategy: External Policy, Internal Purpose,” Contemporary Security Policy 37, no. 3 (2016), pp. 374–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Cross, Mai'a K. Davis, “The EU Global Strategy and Diplomacy,” Contemporary Security Policy 37, no. 3 (2016), pp. 402–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
21 Bhambra, Gurminder K., Rethinking Modernity: Postcolonialism and the Sociological Imagination (Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
22 Sheikh, Mona and Wæver, Ole, “Western Secularisms: Variations in a Doctrine and Its Practice,” in Tickner, Arlene B. and Blaney, David L., eds., Thinking International Relations Differently (Abingdon, U.K.: Routledge, 2012)Google Scholar.
23 Browning, Christopher and Lehti, Marko, eds., The Struggle for the West: A Divided and Contested Legacy (Abingdon, U.K.: Routledge, 2009)Google Scholar; and Hellmann, Gunther and Herborth, Benjamin, Uses of “the West”: Security and the Politics of Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
24 Moravcsik, Andrew, “Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union,” Journal of Common Market Studies 40, no. 4 (2002), pp. 603–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
25 “Public Opinion,” Eurobarometer, European Commission (accessed December 12, 2017), ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm.
26 Habermas, Jürgen and Derrida, Jacques, “February 15, or What Binds Europeans Together: A Plea for a Common Foreign Policy, Beginning in the Core of Europe,” Constellations 10, no. 3 (2003), pp. 291–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
27 Kissinger, A World Restored; Wæver, “Security as Negotiation on the Limits to Negotiability”; and Wæver, Ole, “Power, Principles and Perspectivism: Understanding Peaceful Change in Post–Cold War Europe,” in Patomäki, Heikki, ed., Peaceful Changes in World Politics (Tampere: Tampere Peace Research Institute, 1995), pp. 208–82Google Scholar.
29 Ole Wæver, “‘The West’ versus Other Western ‘We's’: A Discourse Analysis in Reverse,” in Hellmann and Herborth, Uses of “the West ,” pp. 37–59.
30 Carr, Edward H., The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919–1936: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (London: Papermac, 1939)Google Scholar; Wivel, Anders and Wæver, Ole, “The Power of Peaceful Change: The Crisis of the European Union and the Rebalancing of Europe's Regional Order,” International Studies Review 20, no. 1 (2018), pp. 249–64Google Scholar; Peter Marcus Kristensen and Ole Wæver, “Peaceful Change as the First Great Debate: Interwar IR and Historical Revisionism Revisited” (Under Review, 2018); and Wæver, “Power, Principles and Perspectivism.”