Gigi Apparently reading the title of the cat, you think that Europe can not have global diplomacy? Why? But first, what is to develop a global diplomacy?
Bertrand Badie: It was one of the key objectives of the European construction. With the third pillar first, then from Lisbon with the establishment of the High Representative and External Action Service Européene (SMAW), we sought for a decade at least make sense of integration European Regional endowing it with a diplomacy that would speak on behalf of all members of the Union.
Except that this was linked to the common diplomacy unanimity of its members, considering the kind of diplomatic expression that would be the result of national diplomacy, or the expression of a common will. For this to succeed, it needed further political integration, to give meaning to the common will be part of a unit impulse. However, this dynamic was part simultaneously in the context of enlargement, which was not conducive to consensus and in a context of crisis, which boosted again nationalisms of each State. It is not surprising under these conditions that diplomacy has failed in its claim unit, all three factors were more upset her.
First, the parallel rise of neoconservatism in the United States could only divide Europe, particularly between those who chose loyalty to Washington and those who sought to distinguish themselves from a . diplomat almost considered extremist.
Moreover, this diplomacy had paradoxically chance of progress if it was worn by a leader: it was indeed the role of France until 2004. Since the crisis of the French diplomatic leadership has emerged because of the difficulties in relations with Britain Tony Blair, then with the fading of the Franco-German couple.
Finally, the crisis of the euro has helped to shape an internal diplomatic space for the European Union which could only complicate the task of those who claimed to promote diplomacy 27.
Peter Martin: The possibility of global diplomacy for Europe does not she ask the more radical question of common diplomacy and so the European defense? Can we really articulate a common diplomacy without military force?
Bertrand Badie: Actually, the idea of ??a European global diplomacy that fit into the continuity of a long history. Europe since the Renaissance, the claim that a global diplomacy, well before all the other powers. One might even say that the old continent has the greatest dificulties to emancipate themselves from the globalist vision he developed before all others.
To the brink of World War II, this claim is easily articulated with the military capabilities of the European states. After 1945, these capabilities have struggled to display on a community basis, they felt at the same time the greatest difficulty to compete with the United States and the USSR. This is why the military Europe was quickly erased before the reality of NATO.
Today, the equation is more complex after the fall of the wall, we saw that Europe hesitated continuity between the Atlantic and the expression of a self-defense is still the first option prevailed and we’re there, which, of course, all the amputated own ability to the European Union for diplomacy, I totally agree with you.
At the same time, we must raise the whole question of diplomacy today it can only exist on a substrate military? If so, Europe is likely to be present in the world through some national actions, such as France in Mali, with all the risks that entails, or small operations, such as those conducted by EUFOR in some critical points in the world.
If not, we can try to go a step further and imagine a European diplomatic radiation that would be built beyond the use of force, a bit like what the emerging powers today ‘ Today, in particular, Brazil. This choice is not absurd: when military victories are rare, other challenges are possible on the cultural, economic and social …
Khagneux: World Diplomacy and diplomatic community are they compatible in a system that remains, according to Gauchet, “Westphalian terribly out of Europe?”
Bertrand Badie: No one can deny the rise, often dramatically, national diplomats who might even evoke nostalgia Westphalian … The Malian episode has also clearly shown the analyzes differ from one European country to another, including in the backyard of the old Europe. I do not think that in so far as there is a return to a sustainable model for national competition anyway hackneyed: I see this trend mainly the effect of post-bipolar uncertainties, differences in the pace discovery of principles articulating the new international system and the projection of national egoism related to the severity of the crisis. I also see the difficulties produced by the three major Western states to be in a world that no longer resembles their expectations.
Britain can not find a formula that can extend the former ally preferred posture of the United States can no longer camp, Germany seeks a kind of pacifism or apathy diplomatic formula alternatives to his former position as a pivot of the Atlantic Alliance. As for France, it fails to find in the post-Gaullist new diplomatic formula for him to satisfy his ambitions. These three hesitation probably explain the lack of diplomatic convergence among European governments remained cautious and unimaginative.
Guest: The solution of a Europe of variable geometry allow it this world diplomacy?
Bertrand Badie: I would gladly have believed a few years ago, I would have persisted in this belief during the 2004 enlargement, which indeed was a blow to the chances of building a real diplomatic consensus. Today, I am not so sure, because I observed that these dissonances reach more the heart of the old Europe that its margins. There is obviously a gap between diplomatic options Paris and those of Berlin, fueled by disagreements that have arisen in economic terms, but also probably by too sudden change in the power relationship between the two countries that once formed a solid couple.
Charles Fournier: The issue of global diplomacy of Europe does not require further integration of EU policy in each Member State? Should we not go through the establishment of a European federalism?
Bertrand Badie: Certainly we can not separate sectors, much less today than yesterday. Globalization mixes with environmental economic, monetary issues, commercial, diplomatic and military.
Moreover, as it is difficult to save a currency by the juxtaposition of 17 parliamentary proceedings, and it is almost impossible to conceive of diplomacy from 27 proceedings of this nature. He was intellectually logical to abolish the “pillars” and unify the constituent sectors of European integration, but it was unrealistic to do so on a purely intellectual way without taking the precaution to accompany this nascent diplomacy process leading institutionally insipid sovereignties: in fact, it was this topic, but it was exactly what we wanted to avoid. Hence today’s inconsistencies: it is not the first time that Europe fails for lack of realism.
André: Presumably, Europe, governance and economic crisis and with a minimalist budget, deploys its diplomacy on an arc of a circle stretching from Eastern Europe to Africa via the Middle East. No more. Are you okay?
Bertrand Badie: Yes. You generally right and what you describe is nothing but a symptom resulting from a regression of the status of major than average power output: you show that in Europe, especially after 1945 after decolonization, no longer has the means to take care of its neighborhood. This is indeed the banal feature of all average power! However, this facility should be corrected by admitting that we are entering a world where the power of interdependence is such that even an average power is taken to have a global policy or at least interested in others beyond the immediate neighborhood. In fact, Europe fishing doubly sinking into the status of medium power and refusing, unlike emerging to imagine a global policy under the new standards of globalization.
Locarno: Do ??not you think that to develop effective diplomacy, it would have to be played by representatives of the EU member countries who believe in the power Europe? Otherwise, the Germans and French in key positions …
Bertrand Badie: First, should we agree on what Europe might mean today: after all, there is no longer time Locarno … Europe count in the world of tomorrow, so she can also play the card of “meta-power”, that is to say, if she manages to go beyond the handling of military instruments and make a credible offer as to what must be the global post-crisis.
As to the individual players, it is clear that Member States must now make a choice: do we ever have to agree on the choice of European official dull enough not to overshadow the sovereignty of major diplomacy National? Are you ready to choose the head of European diplomacy a major personality crédibilisera it?
Peter Martin: Ashton plays she really the role assigned to it? We recently saw Daniel Cohn-Bendit blame him in Parliament. Is it justified to you?
Bertrand Badie: This is a little sense of my previous answer that you kindly explain.
Peace & War: When Washington pivots to Asia, he left the African continent to the Europeans and especially the French (Cote d’Ivoire, Libya and now Mali)?
Amelie: The American strategy pivot Does it offer the EU an opportunity to finally assert itself on the international scene, filling the void left by the United States?
Bertrand Badie: The rebalancing of . diplomacy toward Asia can be interpreted as the realization by Washington that globalization means. Presumably Obama, focusing on US-Asian relations, can measure the impact of economic parameters in the new international policy and take into account the interdependence as it replaces the old politico-military relations competition.
It’s a pity that Europe interpret this element of progress as a good excuse to return to Africa and will replay the scenes in which she formerly delighted. Rather than a new division of the world should now attend an integration of each other in a less compartmentalized and many cross formerly world.
Marguerite: The common defense policy of the EU is she officially a failure?
Bertrand Badie: It is, in any case, stalled occasionally risen by more bilateral and intra-European Community intitiatives. This is for example the direction of Franco-British defense initiatives.
Guest: Considering the fact that France alone in Mali, the Franco-British intervention in Libya, and the “special relationship” between the United Kingdom and the United States but also with the Commonwealth, the European powers were they actually an interest in a common diplomacy?
Bertrand Badie: You clearly show elements that are either permanently revive the spirit of the nineteenth century, or extend the period Atlanticist. It is between these two past qu’hésite European diplomacy models today, showing a disturbing lack of imagination and insight on what the new global context. In reality, Europe still dream of the Congress of Vienna and the Concert of Europe, and struggling to free itself from the most recent period of the Cold War. It is significant that in the examples as you go along, there is never a question of multilateralism and the role that Europe should take to reappear in more global and more united current traits.
August-1: Could we imagine that the EU has a seat on the Security Council?
Bertrand Badie: With all that we have said, we can see how wrong! It is hard to imagine a single European delegate able to defend on behalf of the 27 one vision in international politics. Just look: Palestine, Kosovo (that Spain has not recognized), Libya, Caucasus, Russia, Sahel, Iraq, and many others feed more disunity, albeit with different degrees that a common vision. In fact, Europeans are trapped between two poles that have their history: the rivalry that dates back to the end of the first millennium and the complicity that gives them a semblance of unity for better feed this multi-millennial competition …
Fernand: With the crisis in Europe can be said that regionalism is dead to resolve conflicts of globalization?
Bertrand Badie: Yes, that’s the bad news of the beginning of the millennium had long thought that regionalization was globalization possible, but it is already disqualified, not only in Europe but around the world, particular, where it was the most advanced as in South America. In fact, maybe we are on the threshold of a new era where the transregional prevail over the area, a bit like IBSA, which meets on three continents three emerging powers, or the multiple forums that connect different continents between them. France would also do well to acquire this ambition and to work more closely with the new emerging powers and strengthen its own diplomatic abilities.
Poseidon: With Europe as a middle power, in deep crisis and no real diplomatic purpose, can we still consider expanding?
Bertrand Badie: It depends on which … Europe needs links, gateways, bridges to other worlds, if only to be revived. It may pay dearly for the refusal of the Turkish labor, the same one that now turns to the east and the organization of Shanghai. Gaffes not to commit …