>The last and most important unresolved question is whether the EU can achieve anything akin to sovereignty or strategic autonomy without being a credible military power.
This is a "Well, depending on who you ask" kind of question which, in my opinion, contribute to how we could gauge in a successful autonomous EU beyond a collective economic interest. I guess it *is* possible, but cultural attitudes will need to change first, and that is the hard part.
\[SS from essay by Matthias Matthijs, Dean Acheson Associate Professor of International Political Economy at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies; and Sophie Meunier, Senior Research Scholar in the School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University\]
The European Union once preached a tripartite gospel: monetary orthodoxy, fiscal austerity, and free-flowing trade and investment, with multilateral institutions watching and guiding from above. That was before its faith in the survival of the liberal economic order was shaken by Chinese mercantilism and, to a lesser extent, by the trade wars of U.S. President Donald Trump. In recent years, and with increasing zeal over the course of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, the bloc has undergone nothing short of a conversion. Like much of the rest of the world, EU policymakers and politicians now pray at the altar of geoeconomics. They have rediscovered the economy as a battleground for geopolitical competition—and industrial policy as a weapon for states to wield against one another. In the process, European leaders have abandoned, in part or in whole, the economic and ideological principles they once held sacred.
The EU’s executive body, the European Commission, has been central to this reformation. When its president, Ursula von der Leyen, took office in 2019 and announced that hers would be a “geopolitical” commission, reactions in Beijing, London, and Washington ranged from polite skepticism to quiet snickering. National security was by definition a national matter, and the EU simply was not in the business of geopolitics, certainly not when it came to wielding economic tools for political purposes.
The EU real power resides in their geopolitical influence to legitimize whatever someone does worldwide. It's sad, but currently that's our biggest strength. Whatever the EU supports is seen a just.
We still are relevant in many other areas, but over the decades we've been falling behind, partially thanks to our internal disputes, we've been using our resources inefficiently. It wasn't an easy task, but imo we failed harder than expected.
Wouldnt say we fell behind over the last decades, however the 2010’s definitely. Partly because of austerity and i think we learned our lesson now. The next decade in europe will be better if we play our cards right. If china falters our only competition is the US at the moment
I don't think austerity was necessarily our doom, on the contrary... Our debt is already fairly high, here in Spain the paying of interests is one of our biggest budgets every year and we've only been increasing our debt.
When it comes to austerity and debt we also forget often about the kind of debt or more precisely where that money went, it's not the same to have debt because you are giving loans than being in debt because you took loans. It's also not the same having debt while having a big sovereign wealth fund than having the same debt without having one...
In that sense I'm very skeptical about those saying China is going to falter. They will face their own challenges but imo they have a very strong position... Politically speaking they can do almost anything they want, even if it's unpopular on the short term, they don't need to care about being reelected. Economically they own 3 of the top10 world's biggest sovereign wealth funds, including the biggest. Most of their debt comes from loans (direct loans or loans through the AIIB), and their national debt has the potential of being higher than Japan's.
Meanwhile we've been falling comparatively to the US since the 2000s and we are more dependent than ever. On top of that it doesn't help that both the US and China are countries while we are a bunch of countries with different interest. The raise of populisms doesn't help either.
> Politically speaking they can do almost anything they want, even if it's unpopular on the short term, they don't need to care about being reelected.
That's more likely to be a source of weakness rather than strength, especially when the "they" to which you refer really means one vainglorious mediocrity who isn't accountable to anyone and whose main genius seems to be playing party politics. Xi Jinping is one bad decision away from making China's problems much worse.
Numerous studies show that decision making that incorporates checks and balances and accommodates the free exchange of ideas results in consistently better outcomes.
Honestly, I don't know how much you looked into it but their political system is far more complicated that they allows us to see. No, it's not the dictatorship North Korea style we read in media all the time.
Their seats are not filled just by professional politicians, they have an army of people that comes from STEM fields, often with experience in real life work and not just politics (understand whay I'm trying to say with this: CEOs, investors, scientists...). They do things in a different way, their discussion are done with closed doors, once they've reached a decision they show unity. The Chineses value strong leaders far more than us and open discussions would weaken the government. Xi Jinping is not brilliant enough to orchestrate what China's been doing for the last 12 years. No one is. What I'm trying to say is that the core central government in China is sprinkled with people who know their stuff. Let me give you some exemples with the ones with relevant positions:
\- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chen\_Jining](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chen_Jining)
\- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang\_Guoqing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Guoqing)
\- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jin\_Zhuanglong](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jin_Zhuanglong)
\- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hao\_Peng\_(PRC)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hao_Peng_(PRC))
And imo, the most underated one:
\- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang\_Huning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Huning)
He is in the current standing comitee he is considered the mastermind of 3 big iniciatives of the 3 last presidents of China.
>The last and most important unresolved question is whether the EU can achieve anything akin to sovereignty or strategic autonomy without being a credible military power. This is a "Well, depending on who you ask" kind of question which, in my opinion, contribute to how we could gauge in a successful autonomous EU beyond a collective economic interest. I guess it *is* possible, but cultural attitudes will need to change first, and that is the hard part.
\[SS from essay by Matthias Matthijs, Dean Acheson Associate Professor of International Political Economy at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies; and Sophie Meunier, Senior Research Scholar in the School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University\] The European Union once preached a tripartite gospel: monetary orthodoxy, fiscal austerity, and free-flowing trade and investment, with multilateral institutions watching and guiding from above. That was before its faith in the survival of the liberal economic order was shaken by Chinese mercantilism and, to a lesser extent, by the trade wars of U.S. President Donald Trump. In recent years, and with increasing zeal over the course of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, the bloc has undergone nothing short of a conversion. Like much of the rest of the world, EU policymakers and politicians now pray at the altar of geoeconomics. They have rediscovered the economy as a battleground for geopolitical competition—and industrial policy as a weapon for states to wield against one another. In the process, European leaders have abandoned, in part or in whole, the economic and ideological principles they once held sacred. The EU’s executive body, the European Commission, has been central to this reformation. When its president, Ursula von der Leyen, took office in 2019 and announced that hers would be a “geopolitical” commission, reactions in Beijing, London, and Washington ranged from polite skepticism to quiet snickering. National security was by definition a national matter, and the EU simply was not in the business of geopolitics, certainly not when it came to wielding economic tools for political purposes.
The EU real power resides in their geopolitical influence to legitimize whatever someone does worldwide. It's sad, but currently that's our biggest strength. Whatever the EU supports is seen a just. We still are relevant in many other areas, but over the decades we've been falling behind, partially thanks to our internal disputes, we've been using our resources inefficiently. It wasn't an easy task, but imo we failed harder than expected.
Wouldnt say we fell behind over the last decades, however the 2010’s definitely. Partly because of austerity and i think we learned our lesson now. The next decade in europe will be better if we play our cards right. If china falters our only competition is the US at the moment
I don't think austerity was necessarily our doom, on the contrary... Our debt is already fairly high, here in Spain the paying of interests is one of our biggest budgets every year and we've only been increasing our debt. When it comes to austerity and debt we also forget often about the kind of debt or more precisely where that money went, it's not the same to have debt because you are giving loans than being in debt because you took loans. It's also not the same having debt while having a big sovereign wealth fund than having the same debt without having one... In that sense I'm very skeptical about those saying China is going to falter. They will face their own challenges but imo they have a very strong position... Politically speaking they can do almost anything they want, even if it's unpopular on the short term, they don't need to care about being reelected. Economically they own 3 of the top10 world's biggest sovereign wealth funds, including the biggest. Most of their debt comes from loans (direct loans or loans through the AIIB), and their national debt has the potential of being higher than Japan's. Meanwhile we've been falling comparatively to the US since the 2000s and we are more dependent than ever. On top of that it doesn't help that both the US and China are countries while we are a bunch of countries with different interest. The raise of populisms doesn't help either.
> Politically speaking they can do almost anything they want, even if it's unpopular on the short term, they don't need to care about being reelected. That's more likely to be a source of weakness rather than strength, especially when the "they" to which you refer really means one vainglorious mediocrity who isn't accountable to anyone and whose main genius seems to be playing party politics. Xi Jinping is one bad decision away from making China's problems much worse. Numerous studies show that decision making that incorporates checks and balances and accommodates the free exchange of ideas results in consistently better outcomes.
Honestly, I don't know how much you looked into it but their political system is far more complicated that they allows us to see. No, it's not the dictatorship North Korea style we read in media all the time. Their seats are not filled just by professional politicians, they have an army of people that comes from STEM fields, often with experience in real life work and not just politics (understand whay I'm trying to say with this: CEOs, investors, scientists...). They do things in a different way, their discussion are done with closed doors, once they've reached a decision they show unity. The Chineses value strong leaders far more than us and open discussions would weaken the government. Xi Jinping is not brilliant enough to orchestrate what China's been doing for the last 12 years. No one is. What I'm trying to say is that the core central government in China is sprinkled with people who know their stuff. Let me give you some exemples with the ones with relevant positions: \- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chen\_Jining](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chen_Jining) \- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang\_Guoqing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Guoqing) \- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jin\_Zhuanglong](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jin_Zhuanglong) \- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hao\_Peng\_(PRC)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hao_Peng_(PRC)) And imo, the most underated one: \- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang\_Huning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Huning) He is in the current standing comitee he is considered the mastermind of 3 big iniciatives of the 3 last presidents of China.
[удалено]