Does The Eu Want To Match America´s Power?

Does the EU want to match Americas power?

It can be understood from the question, that there must be a certain degree of rivalry between the two if the EU is seeking to match the US’s power, however one could argue that there are differences, which is only natural, but it has not come as far as to be called a rivalry, and as suggested by Hill and Smith one can see it as a “competitiveco-operation”. In order to understand the relationship held between the EU and the US it is best firstly to explain the balance of power theory.

“A growing body of international relations literature contends that balance of power theory has become a relic of the Cold War”. Although it can still be seen as relevant today. America is without a doubt the largest unrivalled superpower of our day due toits economic and military strength which has prevented other countries or coalitions from rivalling or matching its power. The balance of power theory can follow two courses, firstly the more direct course, hard balancing and secondly, the more subtle course, soft balancing. Traditional hard balancing measures are military build-ups, war fighting alliances and transfers of military technology to USopponents. Although directly confronting US preponderance is too costly for any individual state and too risky for multiple states operating together, at least until mayor powers become confident that members of a balancing coalition will act in unison. Also no military coalition could rival the US military capabilities, making a military initiative unviable. One should take into considerationthat America’s role is vital to the preservation of many economies.

As the liberal schools argument assumes that second-tier mayor powers such as Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia are generally more interested in wealth acquisition than security of military status. The concept of power balancing in general has shifted due to the global nuclear situation. A state can not single handilybalance the power of the US, it needs coalition partners. Such a coalition only needs to achieve a rough equilibrium as absolute parity is often not needed to obtain a balance of power in the nuclear age.

Realists in contrast contend that the US will eventually be balanced by one or more states with matching capabilities, which in turn will produce a multipolar international system. Powertransitions occur over time because of the changes in the military economic and technological capabilities of mayor powers. The problem with the realist perspective, however, is the indeterminacy in the timing of the arrival of a countervailing power. Scholars believe that the US will eventually fall by itself as opposed to intervention by other states, but in revue of past empires, never before has onehad such a developed capitalist system in place, also when states and empires begin to diminish they survive, be it in a weaker form, but still exert some influence. Another reason why an imminent decline of the US’s power is improbable is because decline usually follows a war with another imperial power and as a power strong enough to counteract the US does not exist, we are unlikely to haveanother global war.

As a result of this the low-risk course, “soft balancing”, pursued by the EU and other international organisations, such as NATO and the UN is employed. Soft balancing uses international institutions, economic statecraft and diplomatic arrangements as non-military tools to delay, frustrate and undermine aggressive unilateral US military policies. These actions were a prominentfeature of the international opposition to the US war against Iraq, using non-military tools. An example of this was when Chirac implemented soft power in order to pursue his own foreign policy agenda. France was opposed to America’s military intervention in Iraq and therefore used the EU, the UN security council and NATO as a measure to gain support and give more strength to his opposition in...