(BGF) – Will Europe have a strong enough voice in resolving disputes in the East Asia, or just leave it to the U.S? The Harvard professor Joseph Nye, member of the Boston Global Forum’s Board of Thinkers, shared his view in the course of BGF’s one month length conferences aiming at building a framework for peace and security to the Pacific.
The U.S., Europe, and China
By Joseph S. Nye, Jr.
How is Europe responding to the rise of China? As one columnist put it, there is nothing much European governments can do in East Asia save serve as marketing managers for their domestic businesses. They have neither the diplomatic weight nor the military heft to make an impression in the region. Better leave the heavy lifting to the Americans.
If this is true, what will it mean for U.S.-European relations –particularly now that the Obama Administration has announced a “pivot”toward Asia? Since 1941, the United States has privileged its relations with Europe; but now Europe will recede in priority as it sits on the sidelines and follows a solely commercial logic in its relations with Asia. Moreover as Europe sells high tech dual use products that complicate the American security role in Asia, friction is bound to arise between the United States and Europe. Pessimists portray an erosion of the Atlantic partnership that has been crucial to geo-political stability for nearly three quarters of a century.
Fortunately, this picture is unduly dire. For one thing, the Obama Administration has rejected the word “pivot”(which implies turning away) in favor of “rebalancing”toward Asia. That policy reflects the increased economic role of Asia in the world economy without rejecting the importance of the European Union which remains the largest economic entity in the world, as well as a fruitful source of economic innovation as well as cultural ideas and values including human rights.
The recovery of Asia represents one of the great power shifts of this century. Before the industrial revolution, Asia represented more than half the world’s people and more than half the world’s economy. The latter shrank to 20 percent by 1900, but with rapid industrialization, Asia should return to “normal”proportions of half the world’s population and economy by the latter part of this century. This is good news because it represents the rise of hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. But there could also be bad news.
Historians often warn that the rapid rise of new powers like China can create fear and uncertainty that could trigger serious conflict such as Europe experienced a century ago when Germany passed Britain in industrial production. Moreover, unlike Europe where a profound reconciliation occurred within the European Union after World War II, Asia is still riven by territorial claims and disputes over history. Maintaining a stable security balance is not easy in such circumstances.
When the Clinton Administration considered how to respond to the rise of China in the 1990s, some critics urged a policy of containment before China became too strong. Clinton rejected such advice for two reasons. First, it would have been impossible to forge an anti-China alliance since most countries in the region wanted (and still want) good relations with both the U.S. and China. Even more important, such a policy would have unnecessarily guaranteed future enmity with China. Instead Clinton chose a policy that could be called “integrate and insure”. China was welcomed into the World Trade Organization, but the U.S.-Japan security treaty was revived to insure against China becoming a bully. If a rising China throws its weight around, it drives neighbors to seek to balance its power. In that sense, only China can contain China. (And some would say that its recent actions on the Indian border and in adjoining seas are doing just that.) An American naval presence helps to shape the security environment to encourage responsible behavior. While any country’s wish list may be infinite, most tailor their appetites when prices are on the menu.
Where does Europe fit in this picture? First, as indicated above, it should monitor and restrain sensitive exports to avoid making the security situation more dangerous for its NATO ally. Even in trading terms, Europe has an interest in regional stability and secure sea lines of communication. But equally important, Europe can contribute significantly to the development of the norms that also help shape the environment. For example, China follows an idiosyncratic interpretation of the UN Law of the Sea Treaty. Europe, even more than the U.S. (which has still failed to ratify the treaty) is better placed to reinforce the norm. Europe is an important source of the acceptance and multilateral legitimacy which China seeks.
Some analysts see China as a revisionist state eager to overthrow the established international order as its strength increases. But China is not Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. China has benefited greatly from and is not eager to destroy existing international institutions such as the UN, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization –as well as others where European governments play a major role. Here again Europe can help shape the environment to encourage responsible behavior.
In addition, technological and social changes are adding a number of important transnational issues to the global agenda such as climate change, pandemics, terrorism, organized crime, and cyber crime. These issues represent not a transition of power among states, but a diffusion of power away from governments. Coping with these global threats will require increased inter-governmental cooperation that includes China, Europe and the United States.
Finally, there is the question of values. No-one knows how China will evolve as it becomes a middle class nation. We do know that political change tends to occur when countries reach per capita incomes around $10,000. Thus far, Europe and the US have stood together in resisting Chinese (and Russian) demands for greater control of free speech on the internet. And European countries like Norway and Germany have been willing to pay some price for standing up to China on human rights issues. Whether an increased Chinese economic interest in an impartial rule of law (as opposed to rule by law) will lead to greater protection of individual rights remains to be seen. Only China will decide, but again Europe can play a role.
____________________________________
Joseph S. Nye, Jr. is a professor at Harvard and author of The Future of Power; member of the Boston Global Forum’s Board of Thinkers.