LISBON/RIGA – Is the Europe that is emerging from the euro crisis a German one? During the euro crisis, power in the European Union seems to have shifted towards national capitals in general, and towards one national capital in particular: Berlin. But, with Germany introverted, France downgraded, and Britain semi-detached, the big story in European foreign policy is that the time has come for the little guy who thinks big.
In this Europe, the important moves are now sometimes made in Stockholm or Warsaw, not only in Berlin, Paris, or London. And, with major foreign-policy issues on Europe’s doorstep – whether in Egypt, Belarus, or now Syria – useful European initiatives are to be welcomed, regardless of where they originate.
Germany, in foreign policy as well as in economics, can exert decisive leadership in the EU – when it wants to. For example, together with Poland, it led the EU’s attempt to develop a coordinated approach to Russia, and it flexed its muscles on Serbia. But, on other issues – for example, Libya – Germany did not so much lead as use its newfound room for maneuver to follow its own preferences in the face of other EU members.
So the answer today to Henry Kissinger’s famous question about whom he should call when he wants to speak to Europe, is not necessarily “the German chancellor.” While Berlin is increasingly imposing its economic preferences on others in the eurozone, it is not prepared to use military force as a foreign-policy tool, as it demonstrated in the case of Libya.
Moreover, Germany, it seems, is becoming a “geo-economic power” driven by the needs of its export sector. By using economic means to pursue its foreign-policy ends, Germany is gradually turning its back on its European partners.
Meanwhile, as France experiences a loss of power relative to Germany on economic issues, it continues to play a decisive role in foreign policy. France led the Libya operation, and is doing much the same with attempts to impose stronger sanctions against Iran and provide support for the United Nations in Côte d’Ivoire.
But France’s unilateral approach often antagonizes its European partners. For example, French President Nicolas Sarkozy preempted a common European position on the Palestinian statehood bid at the UN in September. In other words, even when France leads, it does not always do so in a constructive way.
Apart from the decisive role that it played in Libya alongside France, Britain is becoming increasingly marginal in European foreign policymaking. Even before it vetoed a plan by eurozone countries to create a “fiscal union” at the European summit in December 2011, it was playing less of a leadership role than it traditionally has on key European foreign-policy issues.
Britain has continued to support EU enlargement, closer links with Turkey, and development in Africa, but it has not launched any creative initiatives to bring other member states along or change the terms of the EU debate. On other issues, such as engaging “strategic partners” – China and Russia in particular – the United Kingdom is often a follower as well.
As the “big three” increasingly pursue their own narrowly defined national interests, however, other EU member states are emerging as leaders in key foreign-policy fields. For example, Sweden – the 14th largest member state in terms of population, and eighth in terms of GDP – under the leadership of Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt and Foreign Minister Carl Bildt punches considerably above its weight. Last year, it increased annual aid to North Africa by SEK100 million (€11.1 million), proposed an EU mission to Tunisia just a week after the revolution to support democratic aspirations there, and was an early and strong backer of UN resolutions in support of the uprising in Libya.
Poland, too, is emerging as a foreign-policy leader. Prime Minister Donald Tusk and Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski have particularly taken the initiative on the EU’s strategy towards Russia, where Poland has largely overcome its differences with Germany and is now at the forefront of efforts to develop a genuinely comprehensive approach. Poland has also led on European defense (though it declined to take part in the military intervention in Libya). This reflects the strength of the Polish economy, which is expected to grow by more than 3% in 2012 – faster than almost anywhere else in the EU.
Germany might be getting all of the attention in this time of crisis, but the last year has been a reminder that Europe is most effective and influential when the small countries get involved and join forces with – and even lead – the big ones. For example, on Iran (with exceptions like Greece), Europeans have united around a clear policy and collective positions, such as an oil embargo.
So, Poland and Sweden: Europe needs your leadership. But that might not be enough in an EU with more than 500 million citizens. Other EU states need to follow their example in order to make European foreign policy truly effective and influential.

Comments (0)
You need to login in order to leave a comment. If you do not yet have an account, please register.
The two commenting options explained
Watch a 1 minute video
to discover how you can comment on the entire article or a specific paragraph. The two images below also explain the two ways of commenting.
1) Entire article comment
Once logged in, simply click inside the comment box where it says "Enter text here." Enter and post your comment.
2) Paragraph comment
Please log in first. Then click to the left of the desired paragraph. Your cursor will automatically move to the comments box. Enter and post your comment.
jean nutson
The Europe that is more likely to emerge from the euro crisis is a Europe of no country in particular as countries like Germany whose economies are considered to be relatively stronger now could be weakened considerably by then which would shift more power and influence over Europe into the hands of the EU,IMF, and other social entities such as corporations.
Zsolt Hermann
The suggestion that smaller countries need to take on the responsibility for leadership in the European Union is a good one.
But as long as the nations remain entrenched within their own borders and national interests, all of them looking at the European or other global problems from their own perspective, and sometimes this country takes the wheel, other times another one, it happens very ad hoc, without real coordination, direction or purpose.
We talk about global world everywhere, we see the signs of how much we are interconnected and how much we depend on each other through all the events of the global crisis, respected high level experts are writing multiple publications on the subject, but when it comes to actual planning or action we still ignore the reality and continue acting from the same fragmented, polarized viewpoint as we have done before.
For Europe, or in fact the whole global humanity to solve problems and build a sustainable future we have to come out of our subjective, introverted, self calculating boxes and start acting above our differences, personal agendas.
If we are truly sitting on the same boat as Nobel laureate economists coin phrased it we have to work out with mutual responsibility how to keep the boat floating and sailing in the right direction.
We need a fully integrated, supra-national socio-economic structure to adapt us to the conditions of the global, integral age.