Monday, May 3, 2010 - 1:20 PM

Steve Walt is pessimistic about the future of the European Union:
There are in theory two ways that the EU could go in response to these events. One possibility is that these recent failures will eventually prompt a further expansion of all-European institutions. This view is the modern version of old-style functionalism: if Europe needs certain institutions to work properly, it will eventually create them.
The second possibility-which I'd deem more likely -- is that we have in fact seen the high-water mark of the EU project. Nationalism is still alive and well in Europe, the Cold War is over and there is thus less need for unity against an external threat, Germany is gradually shedding its post-World War II reticence, and the consequences of over-expansion and excessive ambition have been fully exposed. I'm not saying the Union is headed for the dust-heap of history or anything like that (no bureaucracy goes out of business that quickly, especially when there are thousands of pages of laws involved), but a significant consolidation of power in the near future seems most unlikely.
Given that the EU Union has been one of the more interesting political experiments in recent decades, this is going to be fascinating to watch. Time for IR theorists to place their bets?
It's really in vogue to predict the downfall of the European Union, and for good reason -- they have had a truly awful 2010. Steve, like any good realist, predicts the stalling out of the European project. And he may very well be right.
There are two things that hold me back from making a similar prediction, however. First, the EU has had significant policy reverses in the past -- and the institution has always responded with further economic and political integration. If I had said, the day after Black Wednesday, that the EU would create a single currency in less than a decade, all my realist IR friends would have bared their teeth in an effort to simulate laughter laughed. Similarly, the failure of the EU constitution last decade did not deter the EU from creating new offices designed to centralize foreign policy coordination. These offices haven't really been put to good use yet -- but new leadership could change that.
Second, I'm not sure the eurozone can go backwards -- the common currency might be locked in. There are suggestions that Greece needs to exit the eurozone for a spell, but there's no mechanism and/or infrastructure to make that transition (let me add here that the functionalist argument would predict that there should be a few departurues from the euro, for reasons that Paul Krugman laid out last Friday). Since Greek debt is denominated in euros, and since I doubt the French and Germans will allow that debt to be devalued because it will kill their financial institutions holding Greek debt, Athens has strong incentives to stay in the euro fold.
When going backwards isn't an option, and muddling through is no longer viable, the only thing left to do is move further along the integration project.
It's entirely possible politics will get in the way of this -- but my 51/49 prediction is that come 2020, the European Union will look more centralized than it does today.
What do you think?
THOMAS LOHNES/AFP/Getty Images
Monday, February 1, 2010 - 1:48 PM
The New York Times' Jason McLure reports that Libya leader Muamar Qaddafi did not take well to losing his perch as the head of the African Union:
Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi , the Libyan leader, delivered a rambling rebuke of fellow African heads of state Sunday after they chose to replace him as chairman of the African Union and failed to endorse his push for the creation of a United States of Africa.
“I do not believe we can achieve something concrete in the coming future,” said Colonel Qaddafi, before introducing President Bingu wa Mutharika of Malawi as his successor at the African Union’s annual summit meeting, held in Addis Ababa. “The political elite of our continent lacks political awareness and political determination. The world is changing into 7 or 10 countries, and we are not even aware of it.” (emphasis added)
This is interesting. It would appear that Qaddafi has been reading himself some E.H. Carr. Carr argued in Nationalism and After that the nation-state eventually the world would agglomerate itself into about 10-15 superstates. Which is fine, except that Carr wrote his book in 1945 -- and the world has been trending in the exact opposite direction ever since.
Thursday, April 2, 2009 - 3:25 AM
After reading Marc Lynch's postmortem of the just-completed Arab Summit in Doha, Qatar, I'm beginning to wonder if I've been too harsh about the G-20 meeting this week.
Admittedly, the London summit will not accomplish much, but if the draft communique is any guide, some modestly useful steps were taken (expanding the membership of the Financial Stability Forum Financial Stability Board, expanding IMF lending capabilities). On the margins of the G-20, genuine progress appears to have been made on an arms control treaty between the U.S. and Russia.
Brad DeLong is exaggerating when he predicts, "the best episode of international policy coordination since Bretton Woods itself" I think the Plaza Accord would win that award. But, lest one get too discouraged, just read Marc's posts here and here.
And yes, the title of this post refers to this scene.
Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 11:25 PM
An ineffectual international organisation yesterday issued a stark warning about a situation it has absolutely no power to change, the latest in a series of self-serving interventions by toothless intergovernmental bodies. “We are seriously concerned about this most serious outbreak of seriousness,” said the head of the institution, either a former minister from a developing country or a mid-level European or American bureaucrat. “This is a wake-up call to the world. They must take on board the vital message that my organisation exists.” The director of the body, based in one of New York, Washington or an agreeable Western European city, was speaking at its annual conference, at which ministers from around the world gather to wring their hands impotently about the most fashionable issue of the day. The organisation has sought to justify its almost completely fruitless existence by joining its many fellow talking-shops in highlighting whatever crisis has recently gained most coverage in the global media. “Governments around the world must come together to combat whatever this year’s worrying situation has turned out to be,” the director said. “It is not yet time to panic, but if it goes on much further without my institution gaining some credit for sounding off on the issue, we will be justified in labelling it a crisis.” The organisation, whose existence the White House barely acknowledges and to which hardly any member government intends to give more money or extra powers, has long been fighting a war of attrition against its own irrelevance. By making a big deal out of the fact that the world’s most salient topical issue will be placed on its agenda and then issuing a largely derivative annual report on the subject, it hopes to convey the entirely erroneous impression that it has any influence whatsoever on the situation. The intervention follows a resounding call to action in the communiqué of the Group of [number goes here] countries at their recent summit in a remote place no-one had previously heard of. The G[number goes here] meeting was preceded by the familiar interminable and inconclusive discussions about whether the G[number goes here] was sufficiently representative of the international community, or whether it should be expanded into a G[number plus 1, 2 or higher goes here] including China, India or any other scary emerging market country that attendees cared to name. The story was given further padding by a study from an ambulance-chasing Washington think-tank, which warned that it would continue to convene media conference calls until its quixotic and politically suicidal plan to ameliorate whatever crisis was gathering had been given respectful though substantially undeserved attention.Is this completely fair? Of course not. But it's pretty damn funny.
Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
Read More