Politics

Une nouvelle géopolitique pour l’Europe

Nov 2, 2015 Joschka Fischer

BERLIN – Avec la conquête militaire et l’annexion de la Crimée, et la guerre subséquente en Ukraine orientale, le président russe Vladimir Poutine a clairement fait comprendre qu’il n’avait aucune intention de respecter l’inviolabilité des frontières et la primauté des instruments juridiques internationaux. Il est temps que les Européens cessent de prendre leurs désirs pour des réalités et de croire à un ordre continental régi par l’État de droit. Ce n’est, malheureusement, pas le cas. Le monde est bien plus dur et le pouvoir fait la loi.

L’intervention militaire de la Russie en Syrie et la crise des réfugiés en Europe soulignent cet état de fait. L’Europe doit se rendre compte qu’à défaut de prendre soin de ses intérêts géopolitiques, elle sera tôt ou tard confrontée aux crises en cours dans ses régions limitrophes.

Contrairement aux États-Unis, l’Europe n’est pas une île continentale protégée par des océans. Elle est la pointe occidentale de la gigantesque masse terrestre eurasiatique. L’Europe de l’Est, le Moyen-Orient et l’Afrique du Nord sont ses régions contiguës immédiates et au XXI^e siècle, ce voisinage instable présente le plus grand risque de sécurité pour l’Europe.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Subscribe now to gain greater access to Project Syndicate – including every commentary and our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – starting at less than $5 per month.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 22 Comments on this article

James Hughes Nov 10, 2015

Is the author of this article seriously suggesting that the U.S. respects the inviolability of borders and the primacy of international legal norms while Russia ignores such issues? I think the people of Afghanistan, Libya, Grenada, Iraq, Panama, Yemen, Iran, Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua, etc, might disagree.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Carlos Rodrigo Zapata C. Nov 8, 2015

Far West Philosophie, und der billigen Sorte. Wären in ein so grosser Raum wie Russland Weltmachtambitionen unabdingbar, hätte Russland sicherlich entsprechende Schritte unternommen, um dieses Ziel näher zu kommen. Offenbar braucht Russland ab und zu bestimmte Taten und Gesten zu vollbringen, damit seine Rechte auf solche gewaltige Ressourcen unterstrichen werden. Aber mit Weltmachtambitionen solche Taten zu verwechseln, es ist ein grosser Fehler, vorausgesetzt, man will eben nicht auf solchen Stein stolpern.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ariel Tejera Nov 4, 2015

The challenge peceived by Mr. Fischer for the Euro Zone, is probably the same perceived by all great powers (US, China, Japan, etc): the world is in chaotic flux.

Europe also faces an acute limitation on its foreign policy options, given its federated nature. Its great strength lies on its huge integrated economy, and now on its reach to eastern Europe's countries, but otherwise ... even Mr. Fischer profiles Europe as a regional power, engaged mostly with Russia, Middle East, and with Turkey ambitions.

Contrasting and more effective will be the nimbler foreign policy of the UK: thouroughly accommodating towards China and Saudi Arabia. A facilitator, rather than a force.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Nov 3, 2015

Joschka Fischer claims that ever since Russia's annexation of Crimea, Europe, as a bulwark of "continental order determined by the rule of law" has lost its innocence. Therefore it's time for us to wake up from our slumber and face the geopolitical turmoil in our "neighboring regions." He says our peace and stability are at stake if we do not take matters into our own hands.
We are said to face the "fundamental choice".... " between self-determination and external domination?" This will not only determine our "fate", but also "that of the West." His advice is to "take care" of our "geopolicital interests," which means to deal with effects of tensions and instability, that spill over from our "direct neighbors" - Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. Geographically Europe is vulnerable because - unlike America - it is not "insulated by oceans." Today this "unstable neighborhood poses the greatest security risks" to our Continent.
Fischer sees Russia as our biggest challenge, because the Kremlin has shown that it "has no intention of respecting the inviolability of borders." He urges us to learn from "Russia’s military intervention in Syria" and the refugee crisis that "power rules" and that "a strong transatlantic relationship remains indispensable for Europe," which means the EU "should pursue a course of steadfast adherence to its principles and to NATO."
Then he warns Europe against pandering to China, which plans "to reopen the continental Silk Road" through Central Asia and Russia to Europe. In March 2014 President Xi Jinping was in Duisburg, Germany to give his blessing for the Chongqing-Duisburg route for cargo trains, which takes 16 days to travel more than 6,800 miles (11,000 kilometers) from China via Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus and Poland to Germany.
Fischer says China seeks to "create a strategic alternative to Western transatlantic structures, with Russia either accepting a role as a permanent junior partner." He believes deeper ties with China would not be "in Europe’s interest," as it would only "tear Europe apart both politically and economically." He insists that "Europe, which is most closely tied to America in normative and economic terms, needs the transatlantic security guarantee."
The author regrets that Europe did not roll out a welcome mat to Turkey, as it sought EU-membership a decade ago. He sees Turkey as an indispensible partner to curb the influx of refugees, and as a channel for Europe to exert "influence in the region and beyond – from the Black Sea to Central Asia," however "low" its "potential" is. Nevertheless Europe is well-advised to stay out of the Sunni-Shia conflict and the power struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
When it comes to North Africa, Fischer sees it playing "a crucial role in Europe’s security." Hence our "priorities must be the stabilization of North Africa, humanitarian aid, and long-term support for political, economic, and social progress. And closer ties should include opportunities for legal migration to Europe." At the end of the day, his advice remains just wishful thinking. European leaders are at the mercy of their constituents and have no appetite for long-term commitments. Besides they lack the courage to make radical changes. It's easier to kick the can down the road.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Don Ramble Nov 3, 2015

Vivek Iyer, I am sure that no one denies you your opinions. However it would surely be more interesting to hear them written with some hint of good manners. Is it really necessary for your hysteric rants on what is quite a sober subject?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alex Leo Nov 2, 2015

This article makes sense, more so than others by the same author. Fundamentally, Europe lacks identity as a separate yet coherent entity; left or right interests prevail over National interests, and National interests prevail over European interests, and the history of centuries of European domination, all in the past, has rested on very strong intra-European competitions among emerging and subsiding forces and nations. The importance of Europe is diminishing, and one way for Europe to be relevant is to be more united. Unfortunately, this runs opposite to the European tradition (unlike that of China, Russia, the US) and the current Brussels bureaucracy does not inspire with confidence or competence that they know what the interests of Europe are to defend them. So I do not believe in the seemingly simple solution the author is proposing and the simple message of unity he is pushing.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Zsolt Hermann Nov 2, 2015

Unfortunately the "medicine" prescribed by the author is similar to one offering more drink to a terminally ill alcoholic.
As other comments pointed out the "innocent" Western European nations are - sheepishly or by clear calculations - part of the most dominant and expansive colonial power, "Western Alliance" causing most of the turmoil and destruction in the world today.

The solution for the world's global problems is not more "show of strength" or realpolitik. In a globally integrated and interdependent world such paradigm is leading us towards large scale confrontations, possible world war as we can see day to day.
Whether we like it or not our survival depends on whether we can learn how to mutually live together, how to mutually complement each other above and despite the underlying diversity, mutual distrust and historical hatred.

We do not have to become "friends, riding into the sunset", "putting flowers into barrels of guns" as people usually imagine peace or mutual collaboration.
We simply have to understand that when we all sit on the same sinking boat it does not matter who is drilling holes underneath whom, we all sink and drown if we can't keep the boat afloat.

And here Europe should have been showing the positive example to everybody else through the United European dream. instead this "dream" was simply used to optimize markets, strengthen financial institutions without any regard to the actual people living in Europe and everywhere else.
If Europe still wants to take leadership in shaping the world, they need to rebuild the European Union on full integration, real mutually complementing collaboration showing everybody else how we need to safeguard our survival.
- jagjeet sinha Nov 3, 2015
  
  Indeed, the EU needs to strengthen itself - Invincibility always lies in your defences.
  With NATO securing its geography, it has fortune on its side and freedom to create a really successful Economic Union.
  The desire for SIZE so it can successfully spite the hand that feeds - American underwriting of its defences - is driving it towards disaster.
  That desire for world domination - the possibility of victory lies in the attack - will follow only when the Incumbent stumbles into wasted combat.
  Even in that situation - when # 1 confronts # 2 or # 3 - you have to be positioned with invincibility to win.
  When Britain locked itself into terminal combat with Germany - America walked into # 1 spot, unchallenged.
  The way the EU is struggling from one precipice to another - even # 3 seems way off.
  Unless, as you have rightly pointed out, they strengthen the Economics of the Union foremost - but Politics instead seems the only goal.
  And, Geopolitics is an additional diversionary goal - as if Politics inside Europe not enough !!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Nov 2, 2015

Too many parties with too many conflicting interests and the EU were never structured to deal with this type of crises. With Schäuble at the helm, not a cent to any one; Turkey is enjoying an economic revival because of the instabilities in the adjacent countries. Back to the habits of the good old days, drugs and humans trafficking, arms sales, etc.….and as a bonus they are having the freedom of bombing their allies or shall one say their bitter enemies “the Kurds”..
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Adrian Lucas Nov 2, 2015

Germany has one, and only one, geopolitical responsibility, and it is a responsibility towards Israel. There are countries like Egypt and Jordan that have signed peace agreements with Israel, and Germany has a responsibility to massively support the economies of Egypt and Jordan as gratitude for the courage, since non-populist, of their Realpolitik. With regard to Turkey, Qatar, Iran, and Syria, Germany must do its utmost (granting of credits; development aid; education and dialogue; culture) to nudge these countries into following the examples of Egypt and Jordan by stepping away from their populist policies of support for Hamas (Turkey and Qatar) or Hezbollah (Iran and Syria). That the Palestinian peoples have suffered a great injustice is obvious, but the solution has to be one of dialogue, forgiveness, peace agreements and economic support.
The answer to the problems of the Middle East is not Turkey's admission into the European Union, but a dialogue between Turkey and Israel, and the mid-term creation, with EU support, of a Middle East Economic Community, along the lines of the EEC, with founder-members Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, and Egypt.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
bob Jones Nov 2, 2015

Did Mr Fischer consider about the wild alternative of Eurasian continent? Did Mr Fischer realize China's strategic counterbalance to Russia? Did Mr Fischer realize United States' role as a potential geographic endorser of Russia?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Francesco D'Allessandro Nov 2, 2015

I find Mr. Fischer's thoughts interesting. In my opinion, many of the points expressed are right on the mark. It is clear that President Vladimir Putin is not respecting the West liberal world order... and wishful thinking alone won't make the Russian autocrat behave. The question is how can this predicament be repaired? In it's psyche (putting aside their occasional totalitarian forays), Russia feels more comfortable with Western ideology than that of his Eastern neighbor. What ignited the current crisis was NATO's regime change in Libya against Russia's designs and it's encroachment into the Kremlin's periphery of influence. In Libya's case it cannot be undone; the intrusion into the perimeters that Moscow feels are theirs can be mended by scaling back the support being given to Ukraine and lifting sanctions (that is unless Europe and the United States envision a future war with the Kremlin). At this stage, that Putin intervened in Syria is irrelevant; that conflict will create Russia more headaches than positive imprints in the Arab world. However like Mr. Fischer clearly articulates "a modus vivendi is essential " and that should be our focus on rather than punishing Russia for their knee-jerk geopolitical reactions.

In regards to China, at this time is not a threatening menace. It just wants international respect and trading alliances. The West will be better served by a series of ironclad treaties to continue the status quo. However, it is crucial for the West's interests to erode the political consortium being developed between the Bear and the Dragon. If they are allowed unchecked to forge a parallel economical order the world will become more polarized and thus dangerous in the years to come.

As to the Middle East and North Africa, the West should not interfere in the current crisis between the Shias and the Sunnis. This hatred has existed for centuries. Basically, we should enable and promulgate for all radical blocs to decimate each other. By choosing sides in this religious confrontation we are doing damage to our core interests. If Hezbollah and ISIS/Al Qaeda destroy each other in their doctrinal fervor let it be. One faction might emerge a winner but whoever does prevail will be weakened by attrition. It is common knowledge that the air strikes have magnified the refugee plight (plus Ms Merkel's call for a policy of open EU borders to allow thousands of asylum seekers to enter). Our strategy should be to pull out of the Syrian conflict and let ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Assad, Russia, Iran and the Arab gulf states battle it out. Will this create more displaced persons? Surely it will but with a solid mechanism in place to evaluate the émigré community it can be controlled lest we invite a slew of extremist sleeper cells into the EU.

As one can see the West is facing a myriad of problems; it is up to our leaders to open up a honest open debate as to how to deal with these difficulties and not contrived evening sound bites that are just plain doublespeak. Unless we delete the wishful thinking mentality and the subsequent paralysis of actions (even if politically incorrect) that permeates most of our elected officials, the future of the liberal world order might disintegrate into sheer chaos. It is early still and right now we enjoy a high degree of financial and military strength to overcome many of the contemporary drawbacks but time is not on our side. The more we permit for this anarchy to flourish the harder it will be to suppress it tomorrow.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Brian Shannon Nov 2, 2015

Hi Joschka,

"With Russia’s military invasion and annexation of Crimea, and the subsequent war in eastern Ukraine..."

What? Russia didn't militarily invade Crimea, the ethnic Russians there voted 97.1% in a referendum to rejoin Russia, as Ukraine's economy and society began to unravel in fast-motion.

And trying to portray that all of Ukraine's problems stem from Russia or even the eastern Ukrainian separatists, is simply a fairy-tale.

The West has had, since 1990, more than ample opportunity to court Ukraine and didn't and thereby lost the moral imperative that would have allowed it to involve itself in Ukraine's future.

Why, all of a sudden, now that Russia is showing some interest in Ukraine is the West interested in Ukraine?

Very bad optics, indeed.

As always, very best regards, JBS
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
slightly optimistic Nov 2, 2015

It seems to be argued that hard power is the only solution, because global finance is unlikely ever to be regulated effectively.
We haven't learned much after two world wars. Perhaps the United Nations is going the way of the League of Nations.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Nov 2, 2015

"primacy of international legal norms"... Why not "international law"? Is "legal norms" a euphemism for a set of unwritten rules dictating when use of force is acceptable and when it isn't?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter Nov 2, 2015

A comprehensive view indeed. Much seems to rest, though, on the assumption that "Europe" and "Europeans" can act cooperatively and somehow coordinate the separate geopolitical visions and interests of the British, Dutch, French, Germans, Greeks, Hungariians ... and so on. And frankly, in light of the response to Ukraine and the migrant crisis in particular, the probability of that coordination seems dangerously low and falling.

In the meantime and in my limited view, U.S. geopolitical activities have hardly helped, and anti-American sentiment continues on the rise. What this means for the future of NATO and the concept of "The West" as a meaningful transatlantic idea remains to be seen.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
lakshma reddy Nov 2, 2015

Mr fischer should start global in thinking and act locally. What does global in thinking in 21st digital globalisation? Has not the world has become too small for the new science and technology at man,s disposal?. And the global challenge to the life,liberty,privacy let alone property,the cherished goals of man on this planet including the threat to the preservation of planet as the life source are all at stake as is evident from the drone precision attacks cross border and threat to the digital infrastructure as the basis of new civilisation and globalisation?

If any body forgets and think in terms of geo political national interests and tries to strategies to win the war, well, he will be acting irrationally and committing thousand times genocides than what our predecessors have witnessed.

yes, life and liberty is precious than slavery.but that is only a last option and if any option which is less suffering and meritorious in cost benefit analysis the humanity as one to chose the given the reality.

Your analysis is reminiscent mediaeval politicking not abreast of 21st digital instantaneous communication and laser lethal weapons at the speed of almost the light.

The best option first to be explored at UN level is a compromise of economic political interests for a truly representative federal democratic sovereign UN, surrendering some part of one's sovereignty in favour of UN while retaining your local national identity,governments,etc and this option will eliminate the expedintures on national bourgeoning defence budgets,secures local self government with security as all the cherished human rights and liberties as well as global free trade with equality and equal oppurtunities to all global citizens and man's search for the ultimate TRUTH the God and as a true Christian for the benefit of humanity and as trustees of God's planet.

This not meant to ceremonise but to express ones anguish at the rising political and military conflicts in times hard global economic imbalanced adjustment processes and the unprecedented human suffering in huge man made refugee crisis.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Daley Nov 2, 2015

Good article. But can Europe really play at the level Fischer is talking about? Can it take a position on China different from that of the United States? Or is it just, like Russia, a regional power that will have to defer to the United States (or China) on global issues? The comments on the Mediterranean and North Africa make sense, but creating a mare nostrum starts with Turkey. How Europe deals with Turkey will really determine how far it can go with Fischer's vision.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/Xwb1lLpfr

Une nouvelle géopolitique pour l’Europe

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

Une nouvelle géopolitique pour l’Europe

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification