logo
Europe perfectly placed to lead a world abandoned by US

Europe perfectly placed to lead a world abandoned by US

Asia Timesa day ago

I believe we Europeans feel far too safe. Europe's political and economic leadership in the world, which was still unchallenged at the beginning of the century, has long since ceased to exist. Will the dominant cultural influence of Europe be maintained? I think not, unless we defend it and adjust ourselves to new conditions; history has shown that civilisations are all too perishable.
It is astonishing how much these words used in 1956 by Konrad Adenauer, one of the founding fathers of the European Union, still sound valid today. They perfectly define the current state of the union. Europeans are still struggling to adjust to new conditions – and the conditions to which they need to adjust also continue to change dramatically.
The battle for technological leadership is the current version of this struggle. Success in this domain could transform Europe, yet the continent remains complacent about its decline into backwardness. The European Commission itself calculates that of the 19 digital platforms that have more than 45 million EU users, only one (Zalando) is from the EU.
Information is (economic and political) power and losing control means to gradually lose both market share and the ability to protect European democracies. Brussels has produced a mass of regulation on digital services, yet American digital platforms are getting away with what European leaders themselves call the manipulation of democratic elections, with very little repercussions. Elon Musk's X, was banned in Brazil for less – refusing to ban accounts accused of spreading misinformation.
This decline, however, has been slow enough to lull European leaders into complacency about the future.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump has a point when he laments that the European Union has been slow to engage in the negotiations he imposed on trade. Indeed, even on trade – one of the very few areas in which the European Union has a mandate from the member states to deal directly with third parties – progress is generally stuttering.
The commissioner in charge has to constantly find a common denominator with the agendas of 27 member states, each of which has a different industrial agenda.
Europe's decision-making processes are sub-optimal. Indeed, they were built for a different age. There is no shared voice on foreign policy – the EU has been able to say far less on Gaza than individual countries like Spain or the UK, for example. This may have the practical consequence of eroding the 'moral leadership' that should still be Europe's soft advantage.
Europe's failure to respond to real-world changes is due to sub-optimal institutional settings. However, the current paralysis in the face of a clear need for action may be due to an even more fundamental question of trust in its own capabilities.
On one hand, there still seems room for complacency. As Stanley Pignal, the Charlemagne columnist for The Economist, recently put it, Europe can take a moderate amount of satisfaction from its continued status as a place where people are free to pursue 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'
Yet, it is evident that the institutions needed to concretely achieve those objectives are crumbling: healthcare systems and welfare; robust and independent media; energy and military autonomy in a world without order.
On the other hand, Europe is increasingly resigned. A global poll taken by Gallup International shows that when responding to the question 'do you think that your children will live better than you?' seven of the most pessimistic countries of the world are from the EU. Only 16% of Italians and 24% of French respondents answered 'yes' to this question.
According to Ipsos, less than half of young Europeans feel prepared to enter the job market. And they blame the education system for that. The picture may well be even worse now – this survey was taken in 2019, before the pandemic, war in Europe and, more importantly, AI made the picture even more uncertain.
Europe has no alternative, as even far-right and far-left parties seem to acknowledge. Note that France's Rassemblement National and Italy's Lega no longer talk about exiting the EU but about changing it from the inside. Individual nation-states simply do not have the minimum scale to even try to take leadership in a world looking for a new order.
In a world abandoned by the US, Europe stands a real chance. However, it urgently needs to be creative enough to imagine new mechanisms through which EU institutions take decisions and EU citizens have their say.
This, in turn, requires an entire society to somehow recover the reasonable hope that decline is not inevitable (although we also must be aware that it may even nastily accelerate).
Finally, young people are absolutely crucial in the process. The rhetoric of 'listening to them' must now be replaced by a call for them to govern. They are today what Karl Marx would have probably defined as a class – with very specific demographic, cultural, economic and linguistic characteristics.
These must be turned into a political agenda and a new vision of what Europe of the future could look like.
Francesco Grillo is academic fellow, Department of Social and Political Sciences, Bocconi University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The power calculus driving Trump's tariffs
The power calculus driving Trump's tariffs

Asia Times

time2 hours ago

  • Asia Times

The power calculus driving Trump's tariffs

Despite dire predictions that US President Donald Trump's foreign policy, dominated by real and threatened manipulations of American tariffs and trade practices, US inflation rates and other measures of American economic vigor do not yet give cause for alarm. Indeed, at this writing US-China trade talks seem productive enough so that spokespersons for the European Union say they hope their trade talks take on a similar format. Trump's approach to tariffs has been anything but static—shifting abruptly like a spotlight sweeping across a stage. Yet beneath the political theater lies a calculated strategy with far-reaching implications. While critics assume tariffs invariably raise consumer prices, the reality is more nuanced. Trump's policies appear designed not just for economic leverage but as an extension of his foreign policy vision, particularly in Asia and the Western Hemisphere. Whether this constitutes strategic brilliance or overreach is debatable, but the mechanics of tariffs—and who ultimately bears their cost—demand closer scrutiny. The impact of a tariff hinges on market dynamics, competition and geopolitical leverage. Consider a US$100 product imported from Country X. If the US imposes a $25 tariff, the seller faces a choice: absorb the cost by cutting their price to $75 (keeping the consumer's total at $100) or pass the expense to buyers and risk losing market share. In competitive markets—like coffee from Colombia, Brazil, or Mexico—sellers often absorb tariffs to retain customers. But the calculus shifts when alternatives are scarce. A monopolist, such as OPEC in the oil markets, can dictate prices precisely because competitors lack the capacity to undercut them without facing ruin. This imbalance of power invites broader consequences: nations disadvantaged by such asymmetries may resort to political or even military retaliation, as nearly occurred during the 1970s oil crises. Tariffs also reshape local economies. A Mexican manufacturer facing US tariffs might offset losses by raising prices for domestic consumers or slashing wages. A Canadian auto supplier could lobby for government subsidies to preserve jobs while lowering export prices. Meanwhile, China's state-influenced exporters might reduce prices to maintain access to the elastic US market, repurposing tariff revenue for Chinese domestic projects. Trump's tariffs align with a modern revival of the Monroe Doctrine, which asserts US hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. Recent maneuvers, such as discouraging Chinese influence over the Panama Canal, signal that the administration views tariffs as both economic tools and geopolitical signals. The message is clear: the US will enforce its sphere of influence, and trade policy is one lever to do so. It is possible to imagine Trump's 'super big picture' plan as a compressed version (spanning three years) of the 150-year evolution of the British Empire, beginning with Mercantilism and culminating in free trade. At first, Trump treats the rest of the world as composed of client states, whose economies are tied tightly together with the 'mother ship', the dependent states all at first directed by force majeure to contribute to the greatness of the Metropolitan Authority. Later on, when the dependencies have grown to maturity, a managed form of free trade emerges, and wealth becomes more widely shared. Ultimately, outcomes will be determined by raw power—economic, military and diplomatic. While Trump's aggressive posture may yield short-term gains, inconsistency risks undermining his objectives. China, the primary challenger to this strategy, may currently perceive his actions as domestically focused rather than existential. But if tariffs become an erratic flicker rather than a steady beam, the US could squander its leverage. In an era where trade is war by other means, Trump's tariffs are less about economics than they are about reasserting American primacy. The question isn't whether the world will adapt—it's who will blink first.

Israel launches attack on 'nuclear sites' in Iran
Israel launches attack on 'nuclear sites' in Iran

RTHK

time5 hours ago

  • RTHK

Israel launches attack on 'nuclear sites' in Iran

Israel launches attack on 'nuclear sites' in Iran A photo released by Iran's Revolutionary Guard reportedly shows a site targeted by an Israeli strike in Tehran. Photo: AFP Israel on Friday said it had carried out attacks on Iranian nuclear targets to block Tehran from developing atomic weapons, with reports from Iran saying the strikes have resulted in casualties, including the chief of the country's Revolutionary Guard Hossein Salami. The official IRNA news agency said residential buildings in the Iranian capital Tehren were hit, naming neighbourhoods in multiple locations in the capital. State TV reported that children were among those killed in the attack on Tehran. Reports also say blasts were heard in Natanz city in Iran's central province of Isfahan, where a key nuclear site is located. "Loud explosions were heard in Natanz", which hosts one of the main uranium enrichment facilities, state TV reported. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the attack on Iran would continue for as long as it takes. "This operation will continue for as many days as it takes to remove this threat," Netanyahu said in a video statement, naming the operation "Rising Lion". "We struck at the heart of Iran's nuclear enrichment programme. We targeted Iran's main enrichment facility at Natanz... We also struck at the heart of Iran's ballistic missile programme," he said, adding that Israel had also hit Iranian nuclear scientists "working on the Iranian bomb". Reuters quoted an unnamed Israeli defence official as saying that the strikes have likely killed members of Iran's general staff, including the chief of staff and several senior nuclear scientists. In the wake of the attack, Israel declared a state of emergency, closing its airspace, with Defence Minister Israel Katz saying retaliatory action from Tehran was possible following the operation. "Following the State of Israel's preemptive strike against Iran, a missile and drone attack against the State of Israel and its civilian population is expected in the immediate future," Katz said. An Israeli military official added that the Israeli army believed that Iran had the ability to strike Israel "any minute". Air traffic was halted at Tehran's main international airport Imam Khomeini, while neighbouring Iraq has also closed its airspace and suspended all flights at all airports, state media reported. The Chinese embassy in Iran told Chinese citizens in the country that the security situation is 'severe and complicated', and urged them to pay close attention to developments and further enhance security awareness. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, meanwhile, warned Iran not to respond to Israeli strikes by hitting American bases, saying Washington was not involved. "We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region," Rubio said in a statement. "Let me be clear: Iran should not target US interests or personnel." The strikes on Iran came hours after US President Donald Trump publicly said Israel should not do so, saying that this would ruin chances for a peacefully negotiated solution. A sixth round of talks over Tehran's nuclear program had been scheduled between the United States and Iran on Sunday in Oman. "Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense," Rubio said, without offering support or criticism of the strikes by the close US ally. However, the top Democrat on the US Senate Armed Services Committee sharply criticised Israel for the strikes, accusing it of putting the region and American forces at risk. "Israel's alarming decision to launch airstrikes on Iran is a reckless escalation that risks igniting regional violence," Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island said in a statement. (Agencies) _____________________________ Last updated: 2025-06-13 HKT 10:19

Why Europe must end its strategic drift by working with China
Why Europe must end its strategic drift by working with China

South China Morning Post

time20 hours ago

  • South China Morning Post

Why Europe must end its strategic drift by working with China

As the United States grows more unpredictable under President Donald Trump, some European nations are considering a pragmatic partnership with China . Could this lead to a new triangular balance, or will it deepen Europe's isolation? Under a second Trump presidency, Europe finds itself caught in a geopolitical no man's land. Washington's increasingly erratic foreign policy , Russia's protracted invasion of Ukraine and the failure to craft a unified European Union strategy towards either Russia or China have left the continent adrift. If trust in Russia and its President Vladimir Putin is irreparably damaged and the US proves too volatile a partner, Europe could soon be forced to reconsider its global alignments. The question is not whether to choose between Washington and Beijing but how to reassert strategic agency in a rapidly shifting world order. Despite the potential appeal of closer EU-China ties – from economic diversification to diplomatic leverage – Europe is hesitating. The default response has been inward retreat rather than outward recalibration. The EU had an opportunity to hedge its risks by deepening ties with Beijing, thereby regaining leverage with the US while securing alternative markets, yet no such move materialised. That hesitation has come at a cost. Europe now finds itself increasingly alone, struggling to articulate a coherent alternative to reliance on the US . With Trump back in the White House, the EU must decide whether continued strategic drift is tenable.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store