Europe's Hope Alliances E-Book

J-G MATUSZEK

• Herausgeber: BoD - Books on Demand
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 251

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2025

Beschreibung

The advance in international cooperation consists of a credible willingness to act effectively. Credibility comes from concrete, actionable steps that show that a country or organization is actually willing to take responsibility and help solve common problems. It is not enough to make declarations of intent; the international community expects commitments to be translated into action. Whether it is peacekeeping, climate protection or the fight against poverty, action must be effective and sustainable. Otherwise, the credibility of a country or institution in cooperation is quickly undermined.

Leseprobe

Contents

1. Perspectives

2. What has become obsolete?

3. New axes in Europe

4. How about an APTO?

5. A security architecture and research network

6. New management skills for politics

7. Notes for practice

8. Europe's answers

9. What does Europe think of itself?

10. Defense readiness

11. The game of autocrats

12. Confrontation with dictatorships

13. Efficiency and inefficiency of European institutions

14. What are Europe's politicians afraid of?

15. Where do the media standin an alliance?

16. Alliances, the assets of the global future

17. The financial power of a global alliance

18. Approaches

19. New tones of a future music

1. PERSPECTIVES

If we are to divide the world, as the international community sometimes prefers, then let it be in alliances. That would make it safer. Alliances can indeed bring stability and security when well-designed, as they facilitate the exchange of resources, knowledge, and support. Through alliances, different perspectives and expertise can be brought together, leading to innovative solutions and stronger cohesion. Moreover, alliances can help build trust and reduce conflicts by fostering a sense of belonging and solidarity. However, it is important that such alliances are based on principles of equality and respect. If certain groups dominate or exclude others, it will cause tensions and injustices. Therefore, the focus should be on creating inclusive and just alliances that recognize and value the diversity of voices and perspectives.

It is truly fascinating to further develop the idea of alliances in this context. Well-constructed alliances can be a great source of power when properly utilized. Different communities, nations or political units support each other instead of retreating into isolation. In a world that is increasingly interconnected, cooperation and collaboration are more important than ever, especially in areas like technology, science, climate protection, and global security. By pooling resources and expertise, politics, economics, and research could respond more efficiently and effectively to the major challenges we face.

When alliances are based solely on an “us versus them”-mentality, they inevitably end up dividing the world into “us” and “them”, the inevitable breeding ground for conflict. It is therefore crucial that such alliances are inclusive and recognize the diversity of perspectives and voices. If successful, they could not only lead to greater security and prosperity, but also create a deeper connection between continents.

If the alliance is to be successful, it needs clearly defined strategies that connect all partners. This requires transparent and continuous communication that keeps everyone up to date and addresses misunderstandings or conflicts at an early stage. This communication should not only discuss the common goals and strategies, but also the difficulties that could arise and how these can be addressed collectively. It's not just about the what, but also about the how.

Deep alliances must therefore be more than mere formal partnerships. They must include a genuine commitment to collaboration, equality and respectful communication. And even if the common goal is clear, it must never be forgotten that the way to get there is just as important as the goal itself. Only when the strategies, values and interests of all partners are respected will alliances be successful.

2. WHAT HAS BECOME OBSOLETE?

As the geopolitical landscape changes rapidly, so does the importance of alliances. Institutions that were once considered powerful players may have lost relevance in today's world. Changing political realities, fluctuating economic interests or new threats mean that they lose their impact if they are not re-set. Institutions that lose their relevance lose their ability to influence decisions or to drive change. This particularly affects international organizations, governments or large companies that have been considered driving forces for decades.If they are unable to adapt to new political, economic or technological realities, they lose influence and are overtaken by new players.This shift entails a redistribution of resources, power and influence.

Recognizing this and taking early action is crucial to avoid negative consequences. Delayed action in a political context ends in unstable situations that are associated with enormous costs and a high level of risk. In this respect, the timely recognition of changes is not only a question of reaction speed but also one of foresight. It requires managers who think flexibly, see change as an opportunity and are prepared to make sometimes difficult decisions before it is too late. The necessary adaptation is often precisely what is missing, even when all the signs point to change. Those in positions of power often only seem to react when the baby has long since fallen into the well. This late reaction, accompanied by the fear of taking responsibility, has tragic consequences.

The idea of sitting down at a table with presumptive partners and finding solutions together is considered too risky. Instead, the strategy of acting in isolation is being pursued: if we ignore all the problems, perhaps they will solve themselves! Why deal with the major geopolitical challenges when you can simply remain in fear? Powers such as China, Russia and recently the USA will only give in at some point, if Europe remains in its paralysis of fear. Wouldbe much better to rely on isolated solutions that no one really understands, but at least you can be sure that no one will get involved. Why invest in cooperative, multilateral approaches if you simply wait for everything to sort itself out somehow? It is much easier to switch to crisis mode and hope that the world will stabilize on its own, while Europe sits quietly in the corner and waits for the next big moment.

Would it be better to rely on special solutions that no one really understands? But at least you can be sure that no one will interfere. Why invest in cooperative, multilateral approaches if you just wait for everything to sort itself out? It's much easier to switch to crisis mode and hope that the world stabilizes on its own while Europe sits quietly in the corner, waiting for the next big moment.It has certainly become much more serious. Instead of remaining in fear and plunging into selfisolation, Europe could finally pluck up the courage to face up to the geopolitical challenges. Instead of pursuing isolated and ineffective solutions that are nothing more than political posturing, Europe should finally realize that dialogue and cooperation with partners are crucial to playing on the global stage. At a time when China, Russia and the USA are clearly defending their interests, Europe could take a clear stance and not constantly run after the big powers. You won't win the trust of the population and international partners by constantly ducking away. Europe must finally take bold, decisive steps, otherwise it will remain a mere spectator on the world stage in the long term.

Many countries are experiencing a resurgence of nationalism, leading to policies that prioritize domestic interests over international cooperation. This could result in enlarged protectionism and a decline in global trade. Ongoing conflicts and rivalries, such as those between major powers like the U.S. and China, could escalate, leading to a more fragmented world where alliances shift and international norms are challenged.

Growing income inequality within and between countries can fuel discontent and instability, prompting countries to retreat into more insular policies that resist global interdependence. Advances in technology might change the dynamics of power, with countries that can harness new technologies gaining significant advantages, potentially leading to tensions and realignments. Climate change and resource scarcity could exacerbate geopolitical tensions, as nations compete for dwindling resources, leading to conflicts that disrupt global trade and cooperation. Each of these factors could contribute to a shift away from the interconnectedness that has characterized the globalized world, potentially leading to a more fragmented and less cooperative international environment.

The world is much more multipolar than it was just a few decades ago. While the Cold War divided the geopolitical landscape into two large blocs, we are now witnessing the emergence of several global powers that increasingly want to determine the political agenda. NATO, once conceived primarily as a military bulwark against the Soviet threat, is struggling to redefine itself in the multipolar world. China and Russia, two powerful players, are increasingly taking an antagonistic stance towards Western institutions, creating a new area of tension. If NATO does not adapt and fails to build new security concepts and partnerships in the global arena, the consequences could be fatal.

In recent years, Russia and China have developed increasingly closer cooperation, particularly in response to Western policies. Both countries view themselves as a counterbalance to Western influence and advocate for a multipolar world order. They conduct joint military exercises, including air and naval maneuvers. This cooperation strengthens their military presence in key regions, such as the Pacific and the South China Sea.

Iran and North Korea also share a critical stance toward Western influence and have experienced sanctions and isolation by the West. North Korea benefits from Russian military resources and is a strategic partner for Russia in East Asia. Iran and Russia collaborated in the defense industry, particularly in the context of the Syrian conflict, where both countries support the government of Bashar al-Assad.

China is the main trading partner for Russia and Iran. Especially after Western sanctions against Russia and Iran, these countries have increasingly sought trade relations with China. China purchases large amounts of energy and builds infrastructure projects in these countries. North Korea is economically dependent on China, although it does not have the same level of close economic cooperation as the other countries. North Korea receives support in the form of food and fuel, which is provided by China. China and Russia support Iran diplomatically and militarily, particularly regarding Iran’s nuclear program and the geopolitical situation in the Middle East. These countries have often coordinated to bypass Western sanctions. For example, China has repeatedly vetoed United Nations sanctions against Iran and North Korea and, to some extent, continued trade. A new Atlantic-Pacific alliance could effectively counter the growing cooperation between Russia, China, Iran and North Korea by developing a cohesive strategy that includes military deterrence, diplomatic measures, economic policies and technological advancements. Such an alliance would need to focus on strengthening defense capabilities, enhancing economic ties, and leveraging diplomatic influence to challenge the geopolitical and strategic efforts of these countries.

On the economic stage, countries such as China have expanded their economic power and now dominate many industrial and technological sectors. At the same time, many Western economies are experiencing economic stagnation and a suspicious loss of competitiveness. ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, has also lost influence as China has increasingly emerged as the dominant power in the region. The member states are faced with the challenge of finding a balance between cooperation with China and their traditional Western partners. The growing economic dependence on China and the increasing divergence of economic interests within ASEAN are weakening the entire region.

Many countries are questioning the traditional economic blocs and looking for new economic models that offer more flexibility. The traditional threats to global security, such as the danger of direct military conflict between major powers, are no longer the only relevant aspects today. Instead, new, transnational risks and threats have come to the fore that are difficult to address by existing alliances. These include cyber attacks, climate change, terrorism, pandemics and humanitarian crises.

Comprehensive reforms within the existing institutions could improve the ability to act through restructuring. However, this would require a rapid change of heart with courage and a great deal of initiative. The irony is that the very institutions that see themselves as stable and fit for the future often fail to develop the necessary flexibility due to their rigidity and adherence to old structures. A bit like a ship that stubbornly heads for the iceberg, even though it is already visible in the distance. And in the end, the question arises: “Why didn't we see this earlier?”

Established political and economic leaders must have the courage to challenge entrenched ways of thinking and actively drive change. Many existing international organizations are hampered by slow bureaucratic processes and inefficient decision-making structures. These structures need to be redesigned so that decisions are made in real time and based on up-to-date data, without always having to wait for consensus from all members.

Reforms must focus on greater transparency and accountability in decision-making processes. Today's global institutions often face accusations of a lack of transparency, which leads to a loss of trust. To remain credible, these institutions would need to develop clear mechanisms for participation, influence and accountability. If this change of heart does not take place, it could be said that the institutions will continue to dwell in their familiar twilight zone of bureaucracies, a perfect backdrop to stage the spectacle of a fake globality while the world outside is changing.

Reforms should aim to make the decision-making processes of these institutions clear and understandable. This means that all involved actors, whether states, organizations, or citizens must be included in the processes and should have influence over the decisions. In order to remain truly credible, these institutions would need to create structures that allow stakeholders to actively participate, exert influence, and hold the institutions accountable.

If these reforms are not implemented, there is a risk that the institutions will continue to stagnate in a bureaucratic state. This bureaucracy would keep the institutions in a state of inaction and immutability, while the world outside continues to evolve. As a result, the institutions would no longer respond to the real, dynamic challenges but would only maintain a false world of global collaboration.

The term "false globality" refers to the fact that these institutions may give the impression of acting globally and being an integral part of global cooperation, but in reality, they do not engage with or address the current challenges and changes in the world. This would lead to a disconnected portrayal of progress and cooperation, while the real problems and changes outside of these institutions continue to exist.

The stage is set. In such a scenario, one could admire the UN Security Council as the masterpiece of standstill art, where veto rights are still as impressive as ancient relics on display in the museum room of geopolitical significance. At the same time, the World Bank sits in a glass office and has a permanent staff that knows exactly how to shred paper in a digital world to simulate the feeling of productivity. ASEAN, meanwhile, could get lost in an endless loop that, instead of actual action, ends up in more meetings until the next diplomatic incident in the South China Sea arrives and no one can really do anything because multilateralism is stuck in a holding pattern.

3. NEW AXES

China and Russia intend to challenge and replace the old political and military structures. The joint declaration between China and Russia on February 4, 2022 shows a clear rejection of the traditional systems that were established primarily during the Cold War and afterwards. The partnership between China and Russia is specifically directed against Western dominance in international politics. Both countries conduct joint military exercises, including air and naval maneuvers. This cooperation strengthens their military presence in key regions, such as the Pacific and the South China Sea. Iran and North Korea also share a critical stance toward Western influence, and have experienced sanctions and isolation by the West. North Korea benefits from Russian military resources and is a strategic partner for Russia in East Asia.

China and Russia are increasingly pursuing the goal of challenging the existing political and military structures of the post-war order and replacing them with a new, multi-polar system. This old order, which emerged after the Second World War under the influence of the United States and its Western allies, is based on institutions such as NATO, the United Nations, the World Bank and the International and trade system, all structures based on Western values such as democracy, the rule of law and a liberal market economy. However, China and Russia increasingly see this order as a system that limits their own security and economic interests.

China relies primarily on economic and technological power to gain global influence. With the Belt and Road Initiative it invests in infrastructure projects around the world, creating new dependencies, especially in the global south. At the same time, China is expanding its military presence in the Indo-Pacific region, especially in the South China Sea and towards Taiwan. China is also creating alternative power centers in the digital space by establishing its own standards in telecommunications, artificial intelligence and internet surveillance. The aim is to reduce the technological dependence on the West in the long term and at the same time to impose its own standards globally.

Russia, on the other hand, has a more confrontational strategy. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the attack on Ukraine from 2022 mark open military challenges to the Western security order. In addition, Russia uses disinformation campaigns and cyber attacks to destabilize Western societies and undermine confidence in democratic institutions. On the international level, Russia is increasingly seeking strategic alliances, be it with China, Iran or North Korea and trying to create geopolitical leverage through energy policy, especially control over gas supplies to Europe. Both countries are also working to supplement or replace Western-dominated institutions with their own formats. Examples are the creation of alternatives to the World Bank by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank or joint military exercises within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

China is the main trading partner for Russia and Iran. Especially after Western sanctions against Russia and Iran, these countries have increasingly sought trade relations with China. China purchases large amounts of energy and builds infrastructure projects in these countries. North Korea is economically dependent on China, although it does not have the same level of close economic cooperation as the other countries. North Korea receives support in the form of food and fuel, which is provided by China. China and Russia support Iran diplomatically and militarily, particularly regarding Iran’s nuclear program and the geopolitical situation in the Middle East. These countries have often coordinated to bypass Western sanctions. For example, China has repeatedly vetoed United Nations sanctions against Iran and North Korea and, to some extent, continued trade.

A new Atlantic-Pacific alliance could effectively counter the growing cooperation between Russia, China, Iran and North Korea by developing a cohesive strategy that includes military deterrence, diplomatic measures, economic policies and technological advancements. Such an alliance would need to focus on strengthening defense capabilities, enhancing economic ties, and leveraging diplomatic influence to challenge the geopolitical and strategic efforts of these countries.

Why is Russian disinformation so effective in the countries of the Global South? Russia promotes narratives that portray the West as imperialist or hypocritical, while positioning itself as a partner in opposition to the West. These platforms are often less regulated, which makes it easier for Russian disinformation networks to spread false or manipulative content. In countries with lower media literacy and institutional resources, people are often more susceptible to fake news and propaganda. Russia deliberately exploits the divisions in these insecure societies to extend social polarization and further destabilize societies.

Russia has received support from China with regard to the Ukraine conflict and Western sanctions. Conversely, China benefits from Russia's support with regard to security policy issues and its growing military influence in Central Asia. Iran is actively involved in regional conflicts and uses proxy wars to expand its influence in the Middle East. North Korea remains an isolated actor, often using nuclear threats and aggressive rhetoric.

Russia and China have recently carried out repeated cyberattacks on military and economic targets. These tactics make it possible to destabilize critical infrastructure, steal strategic information or influence political processes. These powers rely on disinformation to manipulate public opinion in other countries, promote political instability and undermine the credibility of Western institutions. Russia is a particularly active player here, especially in the context of elections and democratic processes in Western countries.

The commercialization of power also threatens international stability by putting economic interests and personal profits above values such as cooperation and global responsibility. Populist figures such as Donald Trump with his administration team in the US exacerbate this dynamic through their isolationist stance and mistrust of international alliances, which undermines global cooperation. In the face of these challenges, the international community needs to find new ways to respond to threats. In particular, rapid, coordinated action in business and research and the development of economic partnerships based on shared values and fair trade practices could create new, stronger cooperation. The promotion of regional economies and the decentralization of power could provide more stable and resilient alternatives in the long term.

In the long term, the preservation of the world order can only succeed if a value-based order is promoted and strengthened globally. Education, cultural exchange and support for civil society initiatives could help more countries to identify with these values and counter unfair attempts to destabilize the order. The preservation of the world order will indeed rely heavily on the promotion and strengthening of a value-based system that transcends borders. A world order that is anchored in shared values such as peace, human rights, democracy, and sustainability has the potential to create a more resilient global community, capable of withstanding challenges and countering destabilizing forces.

Overall, it is a combination of preventive measures, international cooperation and a strong defense that is necessary to safeguard the existing international peace and order. It is fundamentally determining to be flexible and responsive to new threats. Indeed, the world order is at a turning point where the creation of new alliances of resistance against an increasingly isolationist and selfinterested imperialist tendency offers a unique opportunity in new guises.

The current geopolitical shift opens up the possibility of forging alternative alliances that do not rely on the traditional superpowers. Instead, the focus could be on countries and regions that are committed to open, inclusive and cooperative principles. Focusing on joint economic partnerships and interdisciplinary research initiatives could lay the foundations for a more resilient formation. Such alliances offer not only economic benefits, but also solutions to global challenges such as climate change or pandemics. Global economic decentralization could free countries from dependence on a few superpowers. Regional alliances could react more stably and flexibly to global pressure and create innovative models of cooperation.

4. HOW ABOUT AN „APTO“?

A global pact such as an Atlantic Pacific Treaty Organization could indeed be a visionary and powerful step towards ushering in a new era of global cooperation. Such a treaty would combine the strengths of existing transatlantic potentials, for example with Canada and Pacific alliances, but also create new partnerships based not only on military security, but also on shared political, economic and social values. By integrating nations from both the Atlantic and Pacific realms, this treaty could foster a more balanced, interconnected approach to global governance, an alliance that is more representative of the 21st century's geopolitical realities.

Such an “APTO” could emerge as an institutionalized platform that addresses a broad range of global challenges, focusing not only on military security, but also on geopolitical cooperation, economic partnership, scientific research and global sustainability. This alliance could bring together Europe, the North of America, Asia and Pacific states to work together on a cooperative world order without resorting to hegemonic claims to power or isolationism. The result would be a very effective formation in the fight against the increasingly globally networked clouds of dictatorships, which are spreading ever further and forming ever more powerful networks. The APTO could stand as a beacon for democratic values, human rights and rule of law, offering a counterbalance to authoritarian regimes that are gaining influence on the world stage.

APTO could serve as a counterweight to this authoritarian surge by uniting like-minded democracies, enhancing cooperation in areas like digital governance, supply chain security, and defense, and by offering meaningful support to nations at risk of falling under authoritarian sway. Its legitimacy, however, would depend not only on shared strategic interests but on a genuine commitment to upholding the principles it claims to defend. In a world increasingly shaped by power politics and spheres of influence, the formation of such an alliance could represent a critical step toward preserving a rules-based, open and pluralistic international system.

Another significant aspect could be an enhanced focus on environmental security, with countries from the Atlantic and Pacific regions cooperating to fight climate change, protect oceans, and share green technologies. This would not only serve global interests but also resonate with the younger generations who view climate change as one of the most pressing issues of their time.

In essence, an Atlantic Pacific Treaty Organization could be a bold step toward creating a unified, multipolar world that values shared democratic principles, economic integration, cultural exchange, and collective responsibility for global security. The success of such an initiative would rely heavily on the commitment of member states to mutual respect, understanding, and a vision of a peaceful, prosperous global future.

Without being specific, the geographical arc of a “horseshoe” could extend from South America, with Brazil as its epicenter, via Mexico north to Canada and Europe. There the curve bends towards the Asian continent, whether with the UAE, India, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan or Australia is largely open. This idea of a geographical arc for an Atlantic Pacific Treaty Organization is exciting geopolitically and strategically, as it would unite a large number of important players in a comprehensive network. The geographical arc could serve as a kind of global cooperation zone, bringing together not only Western democracies but also important Asian nations. After all, Europe's interests are not that far removed from securing East Asian trade routes and waterways. And they all have specific interests and needs that should not be underestimated.

Brazil would be the epicenter of South American cooperation in this arc. As the continent's largest economy and a country with an important geopolitical role in the southern hemisphere, Brazil could build a bridge between the western and South American regions. Greater cooperation with Europe and Asia could strengthen Brazilian initiatives in the areas of environmental protection, agriculture and technology. Brazil desperately needs internal and external stabilization. For Mexico, as for Canada, the unpredictable USA has long been a risk factor. Europe's risk factor, on the other hand, is Russia and, subsequently, China and, more recently, the USA. China is India's risk factor, as it is for Taiwan, South Korea and Japan. All the units cited are located in clearly defined risk clouds and would have a considerable interest in participating in security. The emphasis on the collective approach should be emphasized, as many of these risks cannot be managed by a single country alone.

The security architecture coincide with economic relations and free trade. Large-scale research networks are also an important linchpin for intensive cooperation.

This not only promotes the exchange of knowledge, but also innovation, which is of crucial importance for the security and prosperity of many countries. The intertwining of security architecture, economic relations, and free trade can create a robust framework that promotes stability and growth. When nations cooperate on security, it sets the foundation for deeper, long-lasting economic ties, creating an environment of trust and mutual benefit.

Europe is well positioned with its internal balance of tasks in large regions that still need to be organized. This makes Europe a hoped-for hub of global security and prosperity. It strengthens the ability to further expand the European economic and security architecture through innovative and sustainable initiatives. This includes not only the coordination of trade agreements and investments, but also the development of security and defense cooperation that positions Europe as a stable player in an increasingly multipolar world. Europe could also benefit from a more active engagement in areas such as digitalization, green technologies and global health strategies, as these fields not only stimulate economic growth but also demonstrate strategic advantages in terms of global security. Europe's strategic position and its internal cohesion make it a strong contender to play a leading role in shaping the future of global security and prosperity. As the world becomes more multipolar, Europe is uniquely poised to balance competing interests, create synergies between various regions, and strengthen its economic and security frameworks. Europe’s influence will only grow if it actively engages in key sectors that are critical for economic prosperity and security on a global scale.

Europe is at a critical juncture, where its internal balance of tasks and its focus on innovation, sustainability, and security could set it on a path toward becoming a central hub of global prosperity and stability. Through strategic engagement in digitalization, green technologies, and global health, Europe can solidify its role as a key player in the multipolar world. The expansion of Europe's economic and security frameworks will ensure its resilience in the face of global challenges, and its leadership in these critical sectors will continue to drive regional and global cooperation.

This would allow it to perfect not only its economic engine, but also its stabilizing position in the international security architecture. Europe would be ill-advised not to seize these opportunities and invest more in multilateral initiatives and partnerships with other global players. Europe should take full advantage of this geopolitical freedom and position itself as an independent and strong player in global politics. A club of the willing that combines technology, security and sustainable development could create the basis for an innovative and sustainable Europe. Conversely, an overly hesitant, incoherent stance would only weaken the EU in the long term and set it back in a geopolitical environment dominated by other major players.

Parallel to these collaborations, the straightforward exchange of trade and cooperation with the neighboring continent of Africa should not be overlooked. The geographical proximity and economic links between Europe and Africa offer enormous potential for closer cooperation. Africa will be one of the fastest growing economic regions in the world in the coming decades, with a young, dynamic population and enormous potential in various sectors, from agriculture and resources to technology and infrastructure.