The Rise of Global Powers: Challenges for Europe

The world increasingly is revolving around three major powers: the United States, Russia and China. And with all three blocs being led by autocratic personalities and governments, a degree of confrontation is pre-programmed: America seeks to take control of the Panama Canal, would like to accept Canada as the 51st state and wants to buy Greenland from Denmark. Russia invaded Ukraine almost 4 years ago and quite openly seeks to extend its sphere of influence among other Eastern European nations. And , last but not least, China threatens to invade Taiwan and on a regular basis bullies many other nations, be that neighbouring states bordering on the South China Sea or, farther afield, through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), its global infrastructure strategy.

And then there is Europe, or in particular the European Union, of greatly varying cultures. Quite honestly, what does a person in the north of Germany have in common with someone in the south of Spain? Not much at all, you might find, and that is exactly where the problem lies. Where as the United States act under one federal government and share one single language, Europe is home to 44 countries (not counting transcontinental nations such as Russia and Turkey) and some 200 languages. The EU itself counts 27 nation members which share 24 official languages. And while the EU has a centralised administration (a very big one at that!) in Brussels, it understandably struggles to combine the interests of all its members under one hat.

With three autocrats at the head of the world’s most powerful nations (and I am not counting India, where Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party with its right wing, nationalist ideology would also be a strong contender to join the club), the literally ungovernable hotchpotch of cultures and interests of Europe cannot stand up to the shenanigans of the leaders of the not so free world. Not only does this prevent the European block to speak with one voice, but it also costs it a lot (and I mean A LOT!) of money. Just take the Ukraine war as an example: The United States and Europe have so far mostly funded the war, but the weapon systems provided by various armies are not compatible (i.e. cannot fully communicate with each other). Moreover, European armies each source their own equipment, often from their homegrown defence contractors since this means jobs at home since there is always going to be a next election.

Having said that, there is some coordination: There are currently two major European fighter aircraft project under development: FCAS (Future Combat Air System) led by France, Germany and Spain and Tempest with the UK, Italy and Japan at the helm. Both projects are part of Europe’s push for military independence, and both types of aircraft are still a least a decade away from entering service. But the emphasis again has to be on ‘some’: Why can’t Europe develop one single aircraft? While FCAS aims for deep European cooperation and a fully networked battlefield, Tempest is more agile in development, with Japan’s partnership potentially accelerating progress. So will they be compatible/interoperable? Take for example aircraft carrier compatibility: France’s Charles de Gaulle and future PANG aircraft carriers will require catapult-assisted aircraft whereas the UK’s Queen Elizabeth-class carriers use STOVL (Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing). FCAS could have a naval variant (especially for France’s future carrier), but it’s not confirmed yet, while Tempest is unlikely to operate from UK/Italian carriers unless a STOVL version is developed. On a more positive note both jets will be NATO-compatible, meaning data-sharing, weapons integration, and communications should work together although full compatibility is not guaranteed.

Previously Europe at least could count on its alliance with the USA, the big cousin so to speak who would have its back come what may (or almost). But no longer! As the recent comments by President Trump show, Europe may face a trade war with its closest trading partner and may no longer be able to rely on its military strength in a potential future conflict. Yet, as the pronouncements of various European heads of state have shown, the old continent is ill prepared to go it alone. Europe clearly lacks a coherent and unified strategy to fight the challenges that lie ahead. It is nigh on impossible to remedy this situation in the short term as agreements take time to be negotiated and the hurdles to be overcome are considerable: in the EU‘s European Council the qualifying majority is at 55% of member states (that’s at present 15 nations) representing at least 65% of the Union’s population. And in this respect we haven’t even taken into consideration including in joint efforts the remaining European nations which are not part of the EU.

Donald Trump may be bad news (well not for all, of course) in many ways, but his threats of leaving NATO, imposing tariffs even on allies and threatening to withdraw the defence shield the USA provided Europe with may lead to one good thing at least: Europe will finally have to wake up und take charge of its own destiny, be that on trade or on security, rather than rely on its big cousin across the pond. Change is not going to be easy, it never is, but Europe for one will come out of it stronger, more united and better coordinated. And that can only be a good thing.