When soft power is not enough
Some Europeans experience the current geopolitical shifts not simply as a crisis of the international order but also as an identity crisis. In the post-cold war period up to 2022, they had hoped not only that their continent would now truly be one of peace, but also that it was going to shape the rest of the world in its own image – a model of post-national, law-abiding multi-level governance. Little remains of that hope, and our polling indicates that (when Europe is separated from the US) people in the rest of the world appear to be distinctly unimpressed by the EU’s hard power and the bloc as a geopolitical actor.
When asked in an earlier ECFR poll what word best describes various countries and regions, respondents from across the world rarely described the EU as “strong”. In every country polled, respondents were less likely to view the EU as “strong” than the US and China. In fact, the US was above all seen as “strong” in all countries except for Russia. People in China itself, as well as India, Russia, and Turkey usually described China as either “strong” or “rising” (or both in India). Meanwhile, responses concerning the EU were usually more dispersed, with relatively fewer people indicating they consider the bloc as “strong”.
Nevertheless, our new poll shows that the EU has huge reserves of soft power. None of the non-Western great powers can compete with it when it comes to the power to attract. But it is also clear from other research by Oxford’s Europe in a Changing World project that most people in the CITRUS countries see Europe not as a single homogenous unit, let alone simply as the EU, but above all as a number of major European countries, such as France and Germany – also usually including the UK, despite its departure from the EU.
Unfortunately, even this power to attract could now be a problem for Europe, as resistance to immigration likely contributes to driving voters in some countries towards xenophobic populist nationalist parties. The attractiveness of western European countries’ prosperity is also sucking people from countries like Lithuania and Bulgaria. Unless the war in Ukraine ends with a clear victory and a huge effort of reconstruction, the same may also be true, on an even larger scale, for Ukraine.
Moreover, our findings suggest that people outside Europe distinguish sharply between the attractiveness of Europe as a place to visit and live, and the power and resilience of the EU as a political project. This is evidenced in the fact that a remarkably large number of people outside Europe believe the EU will fall apart within the next 20 years. This is a majority view in China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia – but elsewhere many people believe this too, including no less than a third of Americans. Shockingly, a third of the Europeans we polled also believe this – although 50 per cent disagree. Interestingly, the EU is not seen as uniquely vulnerable. Many people across the world – including majorities in China and Saudi Arabia, and over 40 per cent in Russia and Turkey – also believe that the US could stop being a democracy within the next two decades.
How people in the rest of the world feel about the EU’s future correlates with whether they believe Russia is likely to win its war in Ukraine or not. Outside Europe, 73 per cent of those seeing EU collapse as likely also expect a Russian victory, compared to 53 per cent of those who see EU collapse as unlikely. While the majority of both groups expect Russia to win, this is a much more dominant perspective among those who also expect the EU to collapse. This correlation is most noteworthy in China, South Africa, South Korea, and the US, but it is also visible in Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Moreover, the 14 per cent of non-European respondents who see the EU’s collapse as “very likely” also stand out in seeing, in their majority, a Russian victory as “very likely” too (52 per cent).
It is therefore plausible to argue that the EU’s own credibility is at stake in the outcome of the war in Ukraine.And this is not just its credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world, but also in those of Europeans themselves. While the majority of European respondents who do not think the EU will fall apart in the next 20 years also doubt the likelihood of Russia winning in the next five, a plurality of those who believe the EU will fall apart also think that Russia will win the war.
An even stronger correlation exists, both inside and outside Europe, between people’s expectation of the EU falling apart and the United States’ democracy collapsing. Among the non-European public, two-thirds of those expecting the EU to fall apart are also of an opinion that the US could stop being a democracy in the next two decades. Meanwhile, among those who doubt the EU will fall apart, three-quarters see the US democracy as resilient too. This pattern is particularly stark among the publics of China, India, Indonesia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and Turkey – but it is also visible elsewhere, including in Europe. These opinions therefore could be connected to a general perception of Western political systems, whether America’s democracy or Europe’s union.
Conclusion
For people across the world, European countries seem to be very attractive in terms of their way of life and value systems. But, when considered independently from their partner across the Atlantic, they appear to lack the accompanying hard power to protect European interests and values in a world of competing great and middle powers – and of wars.
Both Russia’s war against Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas war will affect Europe more directly than they will the US. A Russian victory in Ukraine would be experienced as an existential threat by most central and eastern European countries, while the conflict in the Middle East could threaten the internal stability of western European countries with sizable minority populations.
“A geopolitical EU” remains little more than a slogan. And, when push comes to shove, people turn back to the US for ultimate reassurance: an ECFR poll from 2020, for example, demonstrated that a majority of Europeans continue to consider the US security guarantee as necessary to be safe from military invasion. But in an à la carte world, no single great power will be able to impose its wishes on the rest of the world.
At the moment, Europeans are caught between two rival strategies. On the one hand are those who cleave to the idea of a bipolar world of democracies versus autocracies, and think Europe’s destiny is to align as closely as possible with the US, the power with which they share the most values. But while the Biden administration has been crucial in defending Ukraine, and the US will continue to be the most like-minded great power, our polling suggests that the world is unlikely to split into two clear-cut camps.
Moreover, US domestic politics continues to be hyperpolarised, and future US presidents will likely be less attuned to European values and interests. That would become dramatically apparent if Donald Trump were re-elected next year for a second term. Even if Trump is not re-elected, the United States’ shifting focus to China will mean that it is by necessity less invested in Ukraine than Europeans, in whose continent that country lies.
On the other hand, those who call for ‘strategic autonomy’ are more likely to divide Europe than to unite it. The slogan has come to be seen as anti-American and to reveal a preference for acting alone rather than in concert with its transatlantic partner. In any case, the EU’s insistence on being a strong and autonomous geopolitical player is certain to backfire if it is divorced from any real capacity to make a difference.
At ECFR, we have suggested that an alternative approach might be to pursue a policy of “strategic interdependence”. On the one hand, this recognises that the EU will never be capable of self-sufficiency and has a desire for interdependence in its DNA. On the other hand, the EU needs to do much more to make itself into a geopolitical actor. With the war in Ukraine revealing Europe’s energy dependence on Russia and the covid-19 pandemic revealing its dependence on supply chains from China, the EU cannot be naive about the vulnerabilities that come from asymmetric dependence. This is why it makes sense to diversify its relationships and develop a response to China’s dual circulation and the United States’ industrial policy. This is the economic aspect of hard power.
It is also high time that Europeans invest more in the military and security dimensions of hard power, building on what they have already done to support Ukraine. A successful further eastward enlargement of the EU, even before the war in Ukraine has reached a conclusion, would also make the EU more powerful and credible in a world of fierce geopolitical and geoeconomic competition.
Rather than clinging to an old set menu of alignments, European policymakers need to seek new partners on crucial issues in this à la carte world.
Methodology
This report is based on a public opinion poll of adult populations (aged 18 and over) conducted in September and October 2023 in 11 European countries (Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, and Great Britain), and 10 non-European ones (Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, and the US). The total number of respondents was 25,266.
Outside Europe, the polls were conducted by Gallup International Association through a network of independent local partners and cross-country panel operators as an online survey in Brazil (1,003; 19 September – 3 October; through Voices!), China (1,006 respondents; 19-28 September 2023; through Distance/Dynata), Indonesia (1,000; 8 September-3 October; through DEKA), Russia (1,000; 19-27 September; through Be Media Consultant), Saudi Arabia (1,012; 19-27 September; through Distance/Dynata), South Africa (1,005; 19-28 September; through Gallup International GmbH), and South Korea (1,000; 18-27 September; through Gallup Korea), Turkey (1,000; 19-29 September; through Distance/Dynata), and the US (1,033; 19 September; through Distance/Survey Monkey), and through face-to-face surveys in India (1,126; 18 September-3 October; through Convergent). The choice of face-to-face surveys in India was directed by the poor quality of internet in India’s smaller cities.
In Brazil, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, and the US the sample was nationally representative of basic demographics. In China, the poll included panelists from the country’s four biggest agglomerations only: Beijing, Guangzhou, Shanghai, and Shenzhen. In India, rural areas and tier-3 cities were not covered. And in Russia, only cities of more than 100,000 inhabitants were covered. Therefore, data from China, India, and Russia should be considered as representative only for the population covered by the poll. Last but not least, considering the poll’s scope and questionnaire, the results from China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia need to be interpreted with caution, bearing in mind the possibility that some respondents might have felt constrained in expressing their opinions freely.
In this policy brief, the results for ‘Europe’ correspond to a simple average across the above-mentioned 11 European countries, unless stated otherwise.
About the authors
Timothy Garton Ash is professor of European studies at the University of Oxford and co-directs the Europe in a Changing World project. His new book, “Homelands: A Personal History”, is currently appearing in more than 20 European editions.
Ivan Krastev is chair of the Centre for Liberal Strategies, Sofia, and a permanent fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences, Vienna. He is the author of “Is It Tomorrow Yet?: Paradoxes of the Pandemic”, among many other publications.
Mark Leonard is co-founder and director of the European Council on Foreign Relations. His new book, “The Age of Unpeace: How Connectivity Causes Conflict”, was published by Penguin in paperback on 2 June 2022. He also presents ECFR’s weekly “World in 30 Minutes” podcast.
Acknowledgements
This publication would not have been possible without the extraordinary work of ECFR’s Unlock team, in particular Pawel Zerka who did an extraordinary job of analysing the data to illuminate key trends and to help the authors sharpen their arguments. Kim Butson and Jeremy Shapiro were brilliant editors of various drafts and have greatly improved the narrative flow of the text. Andreas Bock led on strategic media outreach and Nastassia Zenovich on visualising the data. Susi Dennison and Josef Lolacher made sensitive and useful suggestions on the substance, while Anand Sundar helped us navigate our way through successive drafts. The authors would also like to thank Paul Hilder and his team at Datapraxis for their collaboration with us in developing and analysing the European polling referred to in the report. Despite these many and varied contributions, any mistakes remain the authors’ own.
This polling and analysis was the result of a collaboration between ECFR and the Europe in a Changing World project of the Dahrendorf Programme at St Antony’s College, University of Oxford, who would like also to thank Stiftung Mercator for its generous support. ECFR partnered with the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, Think Tank Europa, and the International Center for Defence and Security on this project.
The European Council on Foreign Relations does not take collective positions. ECFR publications only represent the views of their individual authors.
Source link : https://ecfr.eu/publication/living-in-an-a-la-carte-world-what-european-policymakers-should-learn-from-global-public-opinion/
Author :
Publish date : 2023-11-15 08:00:00
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source.