Sustained Collective Action or Beggar My Neighbour? Europe, America and the Emerging Powers

  • Jolyon Howorth
Part of the Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics book series (PSEUP)


Howorth argues that the world is undergoing a process of power transition, with some powers rising and others declining. Analysts of transatlantic relations insist that in this process the USA and the European Union (EU) should aim to act concertedly and cooperatively, wherever possible, in their relations with other consequential actors. Howorth then assesses the record to date in the relations between the transatlantic partners and China, Brazil, India and Russia and discusses the implications of the disparity between the transatlantic allies in terms of the way they are perceived by other leading actors. The USA is a comprehensible central state, but the EU is difficult to understand and to engage with. Moreover, the EU regularly finds itself competing not only against the USA for influence in the world, but also against its own member states. Howorth highlights the differences and similarities between the way the EU and the USA engage with global powers.


US foreign policy EU foreign policy Transatlantic relations BRICS 


  1. Allison, G. (2012, August 21). Thucydides trap has been sprung in the Pacific. Financial Times.
  2. Anderson, J. J., Ikenberry, G. J., & Risse, T. (Eds.). (2008). The end of the West? Crisis and change in the Atlantic order. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bacevich, A. (2009). The limits of power: The end of American exceptionalism. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  4. Balfour, R., & Carta, C. (Eds.). (2015). The European external action service and national foreign ministries: Convergence or divergence? Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  5. Bandow, D. (2012). Strategic restraint in the near seas. Orbis, 56(3), 486–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berger, B. (2015). The EU and Asian security: What role does the EU have in East Asia security? The Diplomat.
  7. Blyth, M. (2014). Austerity: The history of a dangerous idea. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, M. E. (1995). The flawed logic of NATO expansion. Survival, 37(1), 34–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Castro Neves, J. A. D., & Spektor, M. (2011). Obama and Brazil. In A. F. Lowenthal, T. J. Piccone, & L. Whitehead (Eds.), Shifting the balance: Obama and the Americas. Washington, DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
  10. Clinton, H. (2011). America’s Pacific century. Foreign Policy, 189(1), 56–63.Google Scholar
  11. Copsey, N. (2015). Rethinking the European Union. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  12. Crandall, R. (2008). The United States and Latin America after the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dragneva, R., & Wolczuk, K. (2012). Russia, the Eurasian Customs Union and the EU: Cooperation, stagnation or rivalry? (Chatham House briefing paper). London: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  14. Etzioni, A. (2013). Who authorized preparations for war with China? Yale Journal of International Affairs, 8, 37.Google Scholar
  15. European Commission. (2015a). Trade with China. Accessed at
  16. European Commission. (2015b). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, “The Paris protocol—A blueprint for tackling global climate change beyond 2020, COM (2015) 81 final/2, 4 March.Google Scholar
  17. European Union Institute for Security Studies. (2015, May 13). EU-India forum.
  18. Evans, M. (2011). Power and paradox: Asian geopolitics and Sino-American relations in the 21st century. Orbis, 55(1), 85–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischer, S. (2012). A changing Russia? Implications for EU-Russia relations. In S. Fischer (Ed.), Russia: Insights from a changing country (p. 11). Paris: EU-ISS.Google Scholar
  20. Fletcher, W. M., III, & Von Staden, P. W. (2014). Japan’s ‘lost decade’: Causes, legacies and issues of transformative change. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Fray, K. (2014, October 9). China’s leap forward: Overtaking the US as the World’s biggest economy. Financial Times.
  22. Friedberg, A. (2014). Beyond air-sea battle: The debate over US military strategy in Asia. London: Routledge/IISS.Google Scholar
  23. Friedberg, A. (2015). The debate over US China strategy. Survival, 57(3), 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gaddis, J. (2005). Strategies of containment: A critical appraisal of American national security policy during the Cold War. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gamble, A. (2013). The EU and the evolving shift of power in global governance. In M. Telo & F. Ponjaert (Eds.), The EU’s foreign policy: What kind of power and diplomatic action? Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  26. Garcia, M. A. (2008). The strategic partnership between Brazil and the European Union. In G. Grevi & A. de Vasconcelos (Eds.), Partnerships for effective multilateralism: EU relations with Brazil, China, India and Russia (Chaillot paper 109, pp. 49–57). Paris: EU-ISS.Google Scholar
  27. German Marshall Fund of the United States (2007). Transatlantic Trends 2007, Washington, DC: German Marshall Fund of the United States.Google Scholar
  28. Gessen, K. (2015, February 23). What if Putin were nice? Politico.
  29. Getmanchuk, A. (2014). Tracing the origins of the Ukraine crisis: Should the EU share the blame? Europe’s World.
  30. Godement, F. (2015, March 20). What Europe needs is an EIIB, not an AIIB. ECFR Commentary. aiib11435
  31. Goldgeier, J. M. (2014). To contain Russia, the US should return to Cold War policies. The New Republic.
  32. Gonan, G. (2004). Russia and the Iraq War: Was Putin’s policy a failure? Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 37, 429–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gordon, P. H., & Shapiro, J. (2004). Allies at war: America, Europe and the crisis over Iraq. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  34. Graham, T. (2014, December). In search of Russia (Unpublished MS). New Haven: Yale University.Google Scholar
  35. Gratius, S. (2011). Brazil and Europe: Towards 2015 (Policy brief 67). Madrid: FRIDE.Google Scholar
  36. Grevi, G., & Keohane, D. (2015). Challenges for European foreign policy in 2015. How others deal with disorder. Madrid: FRIDE.Google Scholar
  37. Grevi, G., Keohane, D., Lee, B., & Lewis, P. (Eds.). (2013). Empowering Europe’s future: Governance, power & options for the EU in a changing world. Brussels: European Union. Scholar
  38. Grisanti, L. X. (2000). Europe and Latin America: The challenge of a strategic partnership. European Foreign Affairs Review, 5, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Grow, M. (2008). US presidents and Latin American interventions: Pursuing regime change in the Cold War. Kansas: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  40. Guha, R. (2007). India after Gandhi: The history of the world’s largest democracy. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  41. Howorth, J. (2014a). Catherine Ashton’s tenure as high representative: An ambivalent balance sheet. Cahiers Européens de Sciences Po, p. 3.Google Scholar
  42. Howorth, J. (2014b). European security post-Libya and post-Ukraine: In search of core leadership’ In N. Tocci (Ed.), Imagining Europe. Towards a more united and effective EU (pp. 133–162). Rome: Edizioni Nuova Cultura.Google Scholar
  43. Hurrell, A. (2010). Brazil and the new global order. Current History, 109(724), 60–66.Google Scholar
  44. Hutchings, R., & Kempe, F. (2008, November 5). The global grand bargain. Foreign Policy.
  45. Ikenberry, G. J. (2011). Liberal leviathan. The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  46. International Institute for Strategic Studies. (2015). India-US relations acquire new momentum. Strategic Comment (No. 12). London: International Institute for Strategic Studies.Google Scholar
  47. Jacobs, A. (2015). China, updating military strategy, puts focus on projecting naval power. New York Times.
  48. Jervis, R. (2009). Unipolarity: A structural perspective. World Politics, 61, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kashmeri, S. (2015). Leave the Middle East Be. US News and World Report.Google Scholar
  50. Kennedy, P. (1989). The rise and fall of the great powers. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  51. Kissinger, H. A., & Summers, L. H. (2004). Renewing the Atlantic partnership. Report of an independent task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations. Washington, DC: Council on Foreign Relations.Google Scholar
  52. Kissinger, H. (2012). On China. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  53. Korteweg, R. (2015). Don’t mention Beijing: The EU and Asia’s maritime security (Bulletin 102). London: Center for European Reform.Google Scholar
  54. Kupchan, C. (2012). No one’s world. The west, the rising rest, and the coming global turn. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Lazarou, E. (2013). A model in trouble? The effects of the Euro crisis on the EU as a model for regional integration in South America. Rio de Janeiro: Konrad Adenaur Stiftung.Google Scholar
  56. Lazarou, E., Luciano, B. T., & Dane, F. (2015). Ten years of EU-Brazil relations with an enlarged Europe. Rio de Janeiro: Konrad Adenaur Stiftung.Google Scholar
  57. Lehne, S. (2014). Time to reset the European neighbourhood policy. Carnegie Europe.
  58. Leonard, M. (2005). Why Europe will run the 21st century. London/New York: Fourth Estate.Google Scholar
  59. Lisbonne De Vergeron, K. (2015). India and the EU: What opportunities for defense cooperation? (p. 24). Paris: EU-ISS.Google Scholar
  60. Lo, N. (2015). Russia and the new world disorder. London: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  61. MacFarlane, N., & Menon, A. (2014). The EU & Ukraine. Survival, 56(3), 95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mandelbaum, M. (2010). The frugal superpower: America’s global leadership in a cash-strapped era. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  63. Manners, I. (2002). Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2), 235–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Matthijs, M., & Blyth, M. (2015). The future of the Euro. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. New York: Norton and Norton.Google Scholar
  66. Mearsheimer, J. (2014). Can China rise peacefully? The National Interest, 25, 23–37.Google Scholar
  67. Meier, H. (2015). Origins and evolution of the US rebalance toward Asia. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  68. Morin, J., Novotna, T., Ponjaert, F., & Telò, M. (2015). The politics of transatlantic trade negotiations: TTIP in a globalized world. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  69. MPI. (2014). The Indian diaspora in the United States. Prepared for Rockefeller Foundation- Aspen Institute Diaspora Program. Washington, DC: MPI.Google Scholar
  70. Nye, J. S., Jr. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  71. Nye, J. (2015). Is the American century over? New York: Polity.Google Scholar
  72. O’Neil, S. (2010). Brazil as an emerging power: The view from the United States (Policy briefing 16). Johannesburg: South African Institute for International Affairs.Google Scholar
  73. Okano-Heijmans, M. (2012). Power shift, economic realism and economic diplomacy on the rise. In E. Fels et al. (Eds.), Power in the 21st century: International security and international political economy in a changing world. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  74. Oxford Analytica. (2015, July 17). Brazil domestic woes set back ambitious Africa policy.
  75. Patten, C. (1998). East and West: China, power, and the future of Asia. London: Times Books.Google Scholar
  76. Paul, T. V., & Shankar, M. (2007–2008). Why the US-India nuclear accord is a good deal. Survival, 49(4), 111–122.Google Scholar
  77. Perkins, D. (1961). A history of the Monroe doctrine. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  78. Pfaff, W. (2010). The irony of manifest destiny. New York: Walker.Google Scholar
  79. Phinnemore, D. (2013). The Treaty of Lisbon: Origins and negotiation. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Posen, B. R. (2015). Restraint: A new foundation for US grand strategy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Racine, J. (2015). India’s foreign policy toward France. A strategic partnership first. In S. Ganguly (Ed.), Engaging the world. Indian foreign policy since 1947. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Raine, S., & Le Mière, C. (2013). Regional disorder: The South China Sea disputes. New York: Routledge/IISS.Google Scholar
  83. Renard, T. (2011, April). The treachery of strategies: A call for true EU strategic partnerships (Egmont paper no. 45). Brussels: Egmont Institute.Google Scholar
  84. Renard, T. (2015a, October 17). Partnerships for effective multilateralism? Assessing the compatibility between EU bilateralism, (inter-)regionalism and multilateralism. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 15.
  85. Renard, T. (2015b, July 15). BRICS: An alternative order in construction. Brussels: Egmont Institute Commentaries.
  86. Renard, T. (2015c, April). The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: China’s new multilateralism and the erosion of the West (Egmont security policy brief 63).
  87. Renard, T., & Biscop, S. (Eds.). (2012). The European Union and emerging powers in the 21st century. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  88. Rifkin, J. (2004–2005). The European dream: How Europe’s vision of the future is quietly eclipsing the American dream. New York/Cambridge: Tarcher and Polity.Google Scholar
  89. Rynning, S. (2012). NATO in Afghanistan: The liberal disconnect. Stanford: Stanford Security Studies.Google Scholar
  90. Saint-Mézard, I. (2015, March). The French strategy in the Indian Ocean and the potential for Indo-French cooperation. S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Policy Report, Singapore.Google Scholar
  91. Sarotte, M. (2014). 1989: The struggle to create post-Cold War Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Schaffer, T. C. (2009). India and the United States in the 21st century: Reinventing partnership. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.Google Scholar
  93. Schmidt, V., & Thatcher, M. (Eds.). (2013). Resilient liberalism in Europe’s political economy. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Sennes, R. (2015). US-Brazil relations: A new beginning. New York: Council on Foreign Relations.Google Scholar
  95. Serra, N., & Stiglitz, J. E. (Eds.). (2008). The Washington consensus reconsidered. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.Google Scholar
  96. Shifter, M. (2010). Obama and Latin America: New beginnings, old frictions. Current History, 109(724), 67–73.Google Scholar
  97. Siles-Brugge, G. (2014). Constructing European Union trade policy: A global idea of Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Smith, K. E. (2003). European Union foreign policy in a changing world. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  99. Soros, G. (2012). Financial turmoil in Europe and the United States. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  100. Stanzel, V. (2015, March 30). China divides the West. German Marshal Fund Transatlantic Take.Google Scholar
  101. State Council. (2015, May). The State Council Information Office of the PRC. China’s Military Strategy.
  102. Steinberg, J., & O’Hanlon, M. E. (2014). Reassurance and resolve: US-China relations in the twenty-first century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  103. Stent, A. (2014). The limits of partnership: US-Russian relations in the twenty-first century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  104. Stolte, C. (2015). Brazil’s Africa strategy: Role conception and the drive for international status. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Stratfor. (2015, July 15). Mercosur: Striving for consensus on EU trade. Austin TX: Stratfor.Google Scholar
  106. Stumbaum, M. (2015). Does Europe matter? The EU as a security actor in the Asian century. NFG report. Accessed at
  107. Tellis, A. J. (2014). Balancing without containment: An American strategy for managing China. Washington, DC: Carnegie.Google Scholar
  108. Ujvari, B. (2015). BRICS bloc(k) rising? (EU-ISS brief no.17). Paris: EU-ISS.Google Scholar
  109. US Department of Defense. (2013). Air-sea battle: Service collaboration to address anti-access & area denial challenges. Damascus: Penny Hill Press.Google Scholar
  110. Valladao, A. (2008). L’UE et le Brésil: un partenariat naturel. In G. Grevi & A. de Vasconcelos (Eds.), Partnerships for effective multilateralism: EU relations with Brazil, China, India and Russia (EUISS Chaillot paper 109). Paris: EUISS.Google Scholar
  111. Volkov, V. (2002). Violent entrepreneurs: The use of force in the making of Russian capitalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  112. Wagner, C. (2008). The EU and India: A deepening partnership. In G. Grevi & A. de Vasconcelos (Eds.), Partnerships for effective multilateralism. Paris: European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS Chaillot paper 109, pp. 87–103).Google Scholar
  113. Webber, D. (2015, February 6). Why Europe must be classed as a declining power. Social Europe.
  114. Wheeler, N. (2000). Saving strangers: Humanitarian intervention in international society. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  115. White, H. (2012). The China choice: Why we should share power. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  116. Whitman, R. (2011). Normative power Europe: Empirical and theoretical perspectives. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Whitman, R., & Peen-Rodt, A. (2014). EU-Brazil relations: A strategic partnership? Rio de Janeiro: Konrad Adenaur Stiftung, Online Dokumentation.Google Scholar
  118. Wickett, X. (2015). Why the United States remains an indispensable nation. Chatham House on-line, 30 June:,3IIW4,C3FX72,CLEJG,1
  119. Wilson, A. (2014). Ukraine crisis: What it means for the West. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  120. Youngs, R. (2014). The uncertain legacy of crisis: European foreign policy faces the future. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institute.Google Scholar
  121. Zhongping, F. (2008). A Chinese perspective on China-European relations. In G. Grevi & A. de Vasconcelos (Eds.), Partnerships for effective multilateralism (EUISS Chaillot paper 109, pp. 77–86). Paris: EUISS.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jolyon Howorth
    • 1
  1. 1.Yale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations