91Èȱ¬

« Previous | Main | Next »

Is Europe irrelevant?

Post categories:

Robin Lustig | 11:19 UK time, Friday, 14 March 2008

of the Financial Times makes an interesting point about European leaders and their fondness for grand-sounding initiatives. The Spanish prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has launched an "Alliance of Civilisations" (what do you mean, you've never heard of it?); and President Nicholas Sarkozy of France is trying to push something called the "Mediterranean Union".

Rachman suggests that the Europeans risk looking irrelevant, but he adds: "Irrelevance is not such a bad fate. The US is relevant alright - but it is also involved in two draining wars, and has hugely expensive security commitments all round the world."

To which one of his readers has commented: "You might say that the US is engaged in two draining wars and has expensive commitments precisely because Europe has made itself irrelevant through a lack of defence spending and a focus on soft power. Quite simply the defence umbrella created by the US after WW2 has helped allow Europe its long slide into the background (there are other reasons, including demographics, but top of the pile is reliance on the US). But the European focus on soft power is wrongheaded - it didn’t help in the Balkans and it hasn’t helped anywhere else either."

What do you think? Is Europe irrelevant because it prefers to rely on "soft power"?

Comments

    This post is closed to new comments.

    91Èȱ¬ iD

    91Èȱ¬ navigation

    91Èȱ¬ © 2014 The 91Èȱ¬ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

    This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.