By Wolfgang
Münchau
Friday, January
08, 2021
An advanced technique in chess is called the positional
sacrifice. It is a technique used by grandmasters where a player sacrifices
a figure in exchange merely for a positional advantage. This is a more subtle
strategy than the one where you sacrifice a pawn for an opponent's knight.
Military strategists like Sun Tsu and Carl von Clausewitz have employed similar
notions. Strategy is not doing what you want to do when you want to do it.
Strategy involves sacrifice in exchange for a greater goal, with uncertain
paths in between.
When we talk about strategic autonomy for the EU, what is
definitely not meant is listening to lobbyists. Or to misquote von Clausewitz,
it is not the continuation of mercantilism by other means. When Helmut Kohl,
Gerhard Schröder or Angela Merkel visit Asian countries, they usually travel
with hordes of businessmen in tow. A strategy would be to leave them at home,
and to tell your trading partners that you only conclude preferential free
trade agreements with countries that meet minimal criteria for human rights.
Sacrifice is not an optional by-product of a strategy. It is the essence of it.
You gain something you want, and in turn you give up something that is valuable
to you.
A strategy is not objectively right or wrong. There is no
such thing as the European or American interest. Strategy, and the lack of one,
are political choices. During the Cold War it was the primary geostrategic goal
of the US to contain and defeat communism. But Henry Kissinger's diplomacy to
collude with fascist dictators was a controversial price the US was willing to
pay for that strategy. It is already becoming clear that the EU - like
Kissinger - has a relatively high tolerance of undemocratic regimes, both
inside and outside the EU. So when I say the EU should become a strategic
actor, I am fully aware that I might end up disagreeing with the strategy it
chooses.
The most important geostrategic position for the EU right
now is its relationship with China. There are a number of plausible alternative
strategic goals. The EU could choose to prioritise climate change and co-opt
China into a strategy of carbon neutrality by 2050. Alternatively, the EU could
choose to prioritise human rights. Economic policymakers have known since time
immemorial that you cannot pursue two goals with one policy instrument. I
personally would prioritise human rights on the grounds that regimes that don't
respect minorities and democratic freedoms do not stick to internationally
agreed targets either. China's non-cooperation with the World Health
Organisation right now should serve as a warning.
But whatever strategy the EU chooses, it should not
pretend that a perceived commercial advantage constitutes an act of strategic
autonomy.
That said, the EU was right not to consult with the
incoming Biden administration before taking a decision. The EU should be free
to strike its own bilateral deals just as the US does. The power vacuum in
Washington was almost certainly a reason why Angela Merkel chose to press ahead
with the EU/China deal. The chess grandmasters would approve.
But the converse statement is not true. We are not
strategically autonomous simply because we decide to go our own way. The whole
idea behind EU is that we give up part of our national sovereignty in exchange for
a greater good - the exercise of shared sovereignty. It has been one of the
more questionable claims of the pro-Brexit campaign to argue that national
sovereignty increases strategic autonomy.
I think Merkel has drawn the right conclusion from the US
elections: when 75m voters support Donald Trump, we cannot claim that his
America-first ideology is defeated, no matter what happens to him personally
after last week's events. The US is a deeply divided country that could easily
flip the other way in a future election. The EU is definitely well advised to
become less reliant on American goodwill.
But real strategic autonomy will require a much broader
discussion in the EU about the strategic goals. This cannot be left to
technocrats or lobbyists. What is good for Volkswagen is not necessarily good
for the EU. If you reduce your strategic perspective to trade and investment
alone, you confuse welfare maximisation with strategy. Strategic choices are
usually not economically optimal ones.
Just ask the grandmasters. They will tell you that
strategic autonomy requires positional sacrifice - the one where the quid pro
quo is neither immediate nor objectively true. And as with real-life
strategies, reasonable grandmasters also disagree.
No comments:
Post a Comment