Advertisement

Conclusions: The choices to be made

  • Jan Zielonka
Chapter
  • 27 Downloads
Part of the St Antony’s Series book series

Abstract

In this book I have offered five possible explanations for Euro-paralysis. Not one, but all five explanations have turned out to be valid, but usually in a different sense than initially asserted. Put more bluntly; the five most frequently cited “truths” about European foreign policies have proved to be only half truths, if not misleading fallacies in some cases. And thus I have found that hegemonic “atavism” rather than hegemonic politics sui generis is the problem at present. None of the major European states aspires to political hegemony and military preponderance on the continent. EU states compete with each other in terms of economics rather than territorial acquisition or military assertiveness. And the key terms in this competition are “diffusion” rather than “concentration” of power, “down-sizing” rather than “up-sizing” of the government, “cooperation with” rather than “domination over” EU neighbors. The growing network of mutual interdependence between EU states, the decreasing salience of territorial issues, the presence of multi-sectoral institutional arrangements and the restraining effect of nuclear weapons suggest that old-style power politics is unlikely to return. However, some of the countries still cultivate imperial images and global pretensions, they indulge in bad habits of “playing off,” “ganging-up,” and parochial “bullying,” they still pursue the politics of glory and pride. I named this behavior hegemonic atavism, and of course it undermines common foreign and security endeavors. But atavism remains what it is — a resemblance to a remote hegemonic ancestor — and does not imply a “back to the future” scenario for the continent.

Keywords

Foreign Policy National Identity Military Power Common Market Study Draft Treaty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    See Jurgen Habermas, “Citizenship and National Identity: Some Reflections on the Future of Europe”, Praxis International, Vol. 12, No. 1 (1992), pp. 3 and 12,Google Scholar
  2. and Antony Smith, “National Identity and the Idea of European Unity”, International Affairs, Vol. 68, No. 1 (1992), p. 68.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    For a more in-depth analysis of problems in analyzing public opinion in the field of foreign affairs see K.J. Holsti, International Politics — a Framework for Analysis, (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1977), p. 280.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Philippe C. Schmitter, “Imagining the Future of the Euro-Polity with the Help of New Concepts”, in Governance in the European Union, Gary Marks, Fritz W. Scharpf, Philippe C. Schmitter and Wolfgang Streek, eds. (London: Sage, 1996), p. 132.Google Scholar
  5. 7.
    The term is borrowed from Max Kohnstamm and Wolfgang Hager, eds., A Nation Writ Large? Foreign-Policy Problems Before the European Community (London: Macmillan, 1973), p. 275.Google Scholar
  6. 11.
    See François Duchène, “Europe’s Role in World Peace”, in Europe Tomorrow. Sixteen Europeans Look Ahead, Richard Mayne, ed. (London: Fontana/Collins, 1972), pp. 37–8.Google Scholar
  7. 15.
    Dominique Moïsi, “Comment”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1 and 2 (September–December 1981), p. 165.Google Scholar
  8. 16.
    Hedley Bull, “Civilian Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1 and 2 (September–December 1982), p. 164.Google Scholar
  9. 17.
    See, e.g., Ralf Dahrendorf, A New World Order? Problems and Prospects of International Relations in the 1980s (Ghana: University of Ghana, 1979), p. 46.Google Scholar
  10. 20.
    Pierre Manent, “On Modern Individualism”, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 7, No. 1 (January 1996), pp. 7–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 21.
    See Friedrich Kratochwil, “Of Systems, Boundaries and Territoriality: An Inquiry Into the Formation of the State System”, World Politics, Vol. 34, No. 1 (October 1986), pp. 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 22.
    See Michael Smith, “The European Union and a Changing Europe: Establishing the Boundaries of Order”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 34, No. 1 (March 1996), p. 13.Google Scholar
  13. 23.
    The terms “zone of turmoil” and “zone of peace” have been developed in Aaron B. Wildavsky and Max Singer, The Real World Order: Zones of Peace and Zones of Turmoil (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1993), pp. 14–35.Google Scholar
  14. see Jan Zielonka, “Le paradoxes de la politique étrangère polonaise,” Politique Étrangère, Vol. 59, No. 1 (Spring 1994), pp. 105–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 24.
    See John Gerard Ruggie, “Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations”, International Organization, Vol. 47, No. 1 (Winter 1993), pp. 171–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 26.
    For a more elaborated version of it see: Richard Rosecrance, “EU: a new type of international actor,” in Paradoxes of European Foreign Policy, Jan Zielonka, ed., (London: Kluwer Law International, 1998), forthcoming.Google Scholar
  17. 28.
    She Hans van den Broek, “No new dividing lines,” Financial Times, September 22, 1997.Google Scholar
  18. or a comprehensive analysis of the differentiation policy of enlargement see Horst Günter Krenzler, The EU and Central-East Europe: The Implications of Enlargement in Stages, Policy Papers, No. 97/2 (Florence: Robert Schuman Centre, 1997)Google Scholar
  19. or Susan Senior-Nello and Karen E. Smith, “The Consequences of Eastern Enlargement of the European Union in Stages,” EUI Working Papers, RSC No. 97/51 (Florence: Robert Schuman Centre, 1997).Google Scholar
  20. 33.
    See Charles S. Maier, “After the Left: The Two Parties in Contemporary Democracies,” a paper presented at the International Conference on “Democratic Politics: The Agenda of the Future,” organized by the Institute for Human Sciences, Vienna, June 11–14, 1997, unpublished draft, pp. 11–13.Google Scholar
  21. 34.
    Jean-Marie Guéhenno, The End of the Nation-State (Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 1995), p. 48.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Jan Zielonka 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Zielonka
    • 1
  1. 1.European University InstituteFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations