← Brussels Playbook Podcast
Brussels Playbook Podcast
How Europe survives when there are no rules
00:28:55
For decades, Europeans shared a simple belief: that the world — however messy — ultimately runs on rules.
Loading summary
Transcript34 lines
- [00:01]
A
Today's episode is presented by Neste, the world's leading producer of sustainable aviation fuel and renewable diesel, which enable customers to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Learn more@neste.com Change okay, we're having this
- [00:17]
B
radiant spring weather here in Brussels, but ironically, I've got the lyrics from the movie frozen randomly in my head. Let it go. So for a while now, we've all been banging on about the rules based order and how it's collapsing. Europe, the ultimate rules based system, has been trying to position itself as the last arbiter, the anchor of stability and moral clarity, the way to stave off the barbarity that brought us two world wars in the previous century. Our guest today argues it's time to let it go. From Ukraine to Venezuela, from the Greenland standoff to the escalating war around Iran, crises are beginning to overlap, bleed into one another and pull Europe into conflicts far beyond its borders. And one way of explaining this is that it's not just that other power players are breaking the rules. It's because the rules based order has become completely irrelevant, a state of UN order. So what does the latest war in Iran reveal about Europe's role in this more chaotic world? Can the EU still be effective trying to manage geopolitics through diplomacy and rules? Do we have any chance in a world that plays fast and loose? I'm Sarah Wheaton, host of EU Confidential. To break it all down, I'm joined by Mark Leonard, director of the European Council on Foreign Relations and author of the forthcoming book Surviving Geopolitics When Rules Fail, and by Reem Momtaz, who's a familiar voice to very longtime EU Confidential listeners, now editor in chief of Strategic Europe at Carnegie Europe and a longtime observer of European and Middle east politics. Mark, let's start with you. You're joining us from New Delhi, where you've been attending the Raisina Dialogue. It's often described as India's equivalent of the Munich Security Conference. So what's the vibe there? Has the war with Iran become a big talking point? How are things being seen from India?
- [02:27]
C
Well, the big starting point is that there are a thousand people who are meant to be here who are not here. International delegates. Many people got stuck in the Gulf. Other people just didn't fly. So there is a kind of huge absence at the heart of the conference, which is a metaphor for the absence of sanity and political leadership which is going on in global politics at the moment. Moment it's something which people are trying to compute and get their heads around. I mean, I think that everybody here is trying to come to terms with a world where the normal rules don't apply and where a lot of the things that they came to expect aren't happening. People are quite directly affected. You know, Iran was an important supplier to India. It was affected by the sanctions. But they're also trying to maintain their relationships with lots of different players. And, you know, millions of of Indians depend for their livelihood on their relations within the Gulf. So people are very, very directly affected on a personal level as well as the sort of global geopolitical manifestations of it.
- [03:34]
B
And what you were saying about the chaotic situation is actually a good way of segging into your book that you have just written. It's called Surviving Chaos, Geopolitics when the Rules Fail. It's coming out in April, and you argue that we're living in an age of quote unquote, unorder. What do you mean by that?
- [03:52]
C
What I mean is that lots of people say that we're living for a period of disorder. But disorder in a way is a bit like hypocrisy, which is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. If you talk about disorder, it implies that there is an order that people agree on. And an order is essentially a set of power relations between different countries and some rules about how you change them which have some legitimacy. So if you say we're in disorder, it implies that there are people who are breaking the order. Unorder is what happens when that order gets overtaken by events. And there isn't a sense of balanced relationships. There aren't clear rules which people agree with. And I think if you look at our current moment, there are even agreements on the facts about what's happening. And there is a real sense that many people around the world didn't think that we were living through an order beforehand. Mark Carney called out the hypocrisy at Davos when he spoke about our rupture in global affairs. And certainly many people in India didn't buy into the setup of the post Second World War order. They didn't feel represented by the different institutions of it. But one of the changes now is that the US has also decided that it doesn't believe in the order that it's set up, doesn't want to be bound by these rules, and it's overturning some things which I think many people thought were basic ideas of the order, such as the idea of sovereign equality between states and the idea that you didn't fix problems by using violence. And those two Sort of fundamental sacred principles at the heart of the United Nations. Obviously not defining American behavior towards Iran at the moment or its policies in the Gulf. So that's I think the superficial manifestations of unorder, but what I think is that they're in fact symptoms of a bigger set of changes which are taking place to our world which are kind of blowing apart a lot of the structure of our world.
- [05:50]
B
So drilling into this particular war in the Middle east and the US behavior and the reaction that we've heard from some European leaders saying, look, this breaks international law. You know, it kind of just doesn't seem to compute elsewhere. So how does this war, you know, illustrate your thesis?
- [06:06]
C
I think it shows that people don't agree on what the rules are that's happening at the moment. That people don't take any of the structures that we've had as given anymore. And we're also seeing how it's not just a question of missiles and planes, but all of the different things that link together are hyper connected world of being weaponized. So at the moment, you know, if you look at the way that the US is pressuring other countries, it goes from, you know, threatening to cut off trade to allies like Spain for not allowing them to use air bases. There's an information war that's going on. People are closing off key lanes of communications. Iran is, you know, is trying to close the Gulf of Hormuz, they're attacking energy supplies. So a lot of the infrastructure of globalization is being turned into battlefields in this conflict. And you know, within a few minutes of the thing starting, it wasn't just a question about Israel and Iran and the United States. But you know, it became a global phenomenon where billions of people around the world are being affected in different ways. Whether it's not getting access to energy, people and things getting trapped in these key nodal points in the global economy. And there isn't really a sense between the great powers that they need to come together and find a way through this.
- [07:36]
B
Yeah, I mean, huge contrast with the negotiations over, over the original Iran nuclear deal where kind of Europe, Russia, the US all kind of came together. Reem, let's bring you in. Where do you see the spillover from this crisis into Europe most clearly right now?
- [07:50]
A
Listen, I can't not talk about the Ukraine war and how that's going to undercut the Ukrainian position because we are in a position where an already tense production line for vital interceptors, for example, and Patriot missiles and others is now under even further strain because the war that The United States and Israel unnecessarily launched against IR has left many countries, we're talking now upwards of 10 countries that are having to intercept missiles and drones and countries that don't have Ukraine's unfortunate experience gained over the past four years in dealing with these projectiles. And so it is putting a strain on these production lines that no one was prepared for and that clearly no one in the White House thought about. So that's the first one. And that's a very big problem for Europe and also obviously for the Gulf Arab states, because they have found themselves much more in the line of fire than they were expecting, with the US taking its precautions to make sure that it has defenses covering Israel, but not doing the same for their Gulf partners where they have US bases. So that's the first thing. Second, of course, it's all about energy, because we saw from the beginning, literally in the first hours of Iran's response to the attack by the US And Israel, they went big, they went deep, and they just attacked the Gulf states and their energy infrastructure, which they hadn't done in June. Why did they do that this time around? Because they perceive this, and I think rightly, as an existential battle for their own survival. And so they're not thinking about the day after, they think they may not have a day after. And so they want to impose the highest cost possible as quickly as possible. And we're seeing the impact. Qatar, one of the biggest providers of liquid natural gas, certainly to Europe, but also to the world, has shut down its LNG production. And that is a massive problem for Europe, where immediately European gas prices doubled.
- [10:03]
B
Yeah, and it's really fascinating. You know, the US Basically has its own natural gas supply. They can ride this out for a while. Whereas we already saw the euro fall against the dollar. People here are really bracing for gas price to increase. Mark, back over to you. Kind of stepping back to some of the bigger concepts from your book. You distinguish between countries that are architects and those that are artisans. Can you explain that concept quickly? And where does Europe fit in this framework?
- [10:30]
C
Maybe to talk about why you have these two types of responses, but essentially my kind of argument is that we're going through a period of explosive change with huge demographic changes, technological changes, changes in energy supply, and in our capitalist system as well. So that is going to blow up a lot of uncertainties. And there are kind of two ways of thinking about how you deal with that. On the one hand, they're countries that have an ideal set of institutions in their mind about how the world should be organized and rules and norms, and they want to build that from scratch. And then they try and work out to shape the world to fit into that picture. And I call them architects. And in a way, the US and Europe were the kind of archetypal architects after the Second World War, building this new global order which has been around for the last eight decades and certainly changed the lives of a lot of people in the West. And so the instinct of the architect is to try and preserve that order. And when the war in Ukraine started, you know, you couldn't go for more than a few minutes without hearing Joe Biden or Emmanuel Macron or Olaf Scholitz as it then was, talking about, you know, the rules based order and defending the order. On the other hand, there are people who, rather than thinking about preserving order and having a particular idea about how the world is working, look at how it's changing and try and understand where the world is going anyway and what these big seismic changes which are taking place in the world are going to mean for the future. And they try to adapt to it, to look at the institutions and structures which we already have, see if you can reinvent them, if you can repair them, if you can improvise new ways of dealing with those changes. And I call those countries artisans. They're ones who expect change and chaos and disorder, and therefore try and get themselves into a position where they can both survive it, but even be in a place where they can benefit from it and profit from it. And the archetype for the artisan is China. They have tried 15 years ago to think about some of these big changes in the world, whether it's technological changes, whether it's these big changes in populations, and then they develop policies made in China. 2025 was an attempt to work out what the 10 new kind of cutting edge edge technology can be. And that's why they're ahead on batteries and EVs and all these other kind of areas. They worked out that a lot of the big growth markets were going to be in Asia, in Africa, in other parts of the world. And they built the Belt and Road initiative to try and build relations with them. And they've sort of been adapting to the world as it's changed. My argument is that during the period of modernity, the architects did really well. It was a fantastic time for the West. We surged ahead and we're able to shape a lot of these different things. But in this new period of unorder where there's going to be a huge Amount of chaos and change. It's a very tough time for architects because you find cracks appearing in your buildings. The weight which they're trying to support is built on very shaky foundations as your power in the world shifts and this feels like a time for artisans.
- [13:35]
B
So what would an artisan Europe look like right now?
- [13:39]
C
I think an artisan Europe realizes that nobody is going to defend you. You can't rely on big external structures like NATO, the World Trade Organization and the COP process on climate. So therefore you need to start with your own security, make yourself more flexible, more resilient. You try things out, see if they work. If they don't work, you abandon them. You talk less about the kind of rules based order, you spend much less time trying to do defend the existing institutions and you come up with makeshift solutions to get through the next few days on the one hand, and on the other hand you try and work out where all these things are going and you put a lot of energy into building up the capacities that you need in order to succeed in the future. It's not a coincidence that China is a superpower when it comes to emerging green technologies or on AI or on quantum computing, because they thought 15 years ago that they missed out on the last industrial revolutions and they wanted to get ahead this time around. So they tried to understand where things were going to go and they put a huge resources into these things and they tested out lots of things. A lot of it went badly wrong. I remember when BYD started, which stands for build your dreams, the dominant Chinese electric vehicle manufacturer. At the beginning their batteries went on fire. People used to joke that BYD stood for burn your dreams rather than build your dreams. And it was a total catastrophe. But they've ended up building amazing electric vehicles that cost a fraction of what a Tesla costs.
- [15:10]
B
So you're saying we need to embrace the FAFO to use a more, a more western model. But you know the F around and find out maybe Europe needs to do a little more of that. But can we still preserve values like human rights as artisans?
- [15:25]
C
I think we can preserve it in our own societies and within the European Union because we've got a lot of control over that, over what happens in our own political systems. But I think we need to be a bit more worried about keeping that alive in our own societies. Whereas during the kind of period of architecture we thought that we were at the end of history, that everyone's going to become just like us. I'm sitting in India at the moment. We spent a vast amount of time lecturing the Indians about democracy and human rights over the last 20 years at a time when they were actually very democratic and pluralist. Ironically, now that they're becoming much less pluralist, Europeans aren't lecturing them anymore because we don't have any credibility and they're not listening to us anymore. And I think our energy needs to go into preserving those values in our own space. And it means moving from a world where we think of everything in universal terms to realizing that it's going to be a much more fragmented world. I think it means being very mindful of the difference between what we can control and what's going to happen in a global environment where many, many powers don't want to be lectured by Europeans, don't want to fit into an architecture that we've devised, and want to write their own story.
- [16:36]
A
I think the question is maybe at large, I don't think the EU can be an architect when it comes to global geopolitics anymore, because the global geopolitics has gone to a place where it is about the return of confrontation with unbridled power and it is about power dynamics again. But the EU can be a shaper when it comes to issues like AI regulation when it comes to issues like the environment, and these are going to be very important, crucial issues. I don't think anyone should look at them as lesser than global geopolitics. But when it comes to war and peace, the EU has never been an architect or a shaper, and it's not about to be.
- [17:21]
B
Alright, we're going to take a quick break, but we'll be right back. Don't go anywhere.
- [17:29]
A
A message from Neste despite the recent European political focus on geopolitical security, defense, as well as economic competitiveness and international trade, the need to continue to advance the energy transition hasn't gone away. Neste's renewable fuels are an immediately available alternative to fossil fuels. While they can also contribute to energy security in Europe, the world needs to keep moving, but with reduced emissions. Neste sustainable aviation fuel and renewable diesel are available today. Let's fuel change. Learn more@neste.com Change
- [18:10]
B
Reem, your colleague at Carnegie Europe, Pierre Vimond, in a commentary piece said, and I'm quoting, Europe's reaction to the war in Iran has been disunited and meek, a far cry from previously leading role in diplomacy with Tehran. To avoid being condemned to the sidelines while escalation continues, Brussels needs to stand up for international law. So considering what Mark was saying, is it even realistic to want the EU to still behave like an architect, or, you know, as Friedrich Merz said, we shouldn't lecture the US and Israel over international law in regard to these strikes.
- [18:43]
A
Listen, I think Merz's comments are extremely problematic. Not because of some sort of attachment to values that are disconnected from reality, but because when Mertz says we shouldn't be lecturing and basically the Americans are doing the dirty job for us, which he, by the way, said in June during the first war that the US and Israel instigated against Iran, the question then becomes one, where does that leave Europe's entire argument when it comes to Russia's illegal invasion and war against Ukraine, which Europeans have been going to the far corners of the world for four years saying this, this is against international law. This is very problematic. This is illegal. And that's why you should be standing up with us. So when Meht says that accusations of double standards fully stand, no one can ever say, no, there isn't a double standard. Because now, clearly, very explicitly, you have a leading, if not the leading leader in the EU saying international law does not apply when we don't like one of the countries. So that's one. Second, the reason why his position is very bad is because what can Germany actually do? So if Germany believes that there needs to be regime change in Iran, why isn't it fighting in this war? Why doesn't it enter the war with the US And Israel? Put your money where your mouth is. But if you are incapable of doing that, perhaps do not say what you are saying.
- [20:16]
B
Maybe indeed that's why he's saying we shouldn't lecture the us.
- [20:19]
A
Yeah, but the mere fact of him saying we should not be lecturing the US is actually taking a position and saying, and he actually said international law is irrelevant. When you say that, then you have to draw the conclusions. If you are actually a leader of a country, that should matter. Especially a leader of a country that is now going through a major overall and heightening of its military capabilities. The other thing, of course, is the EU is not an architect anymore, and nor was it ever an architect of global geopolitics. The EU has a hard time being an architect or a shaper of geopolitics in its immediate neighborhood. Let's talk about, you know, the war in Ukraine or its southern neighborhood when it comes to Gaza. And so as such, I don't think the EU should be thinking of itself as possibly having an architect role in this war. But unfortunately, what it should understand, and that goes to Friedrich Mech and others in the EU is that its most important partner, the partner that has underwritten its security, has decided not only to launch a war for which Europe is going to pay the biggest price after the Arab world, it has launched this war without any regard to any coordination, any securing of its European allies. And if this isn't enough for the Europeans to understand that they need to do much more for themselves and do much less. What's the polite word? Brown nosing. With this president in the White House, then the EU does not deserve to be seen as a geopolitical power because it simply is not and it is choosing submission.
- [22:06]
B
Well, let's look at some contrast points. French President Emmanuel Macron. Initially, Macron wasn't outright rebuking the U. S. Israeli intervention in Iran. But now we're seeing him align himself more with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez to push back on the strikes. How should we read that?
- [22:23]
A
You know, I actually don't agree with your characterization. I think Macron, from the beginning, in his first tweet after the war started, said very clearly that this was a war that was launched by the US And Israel and that will have very dire consequences. He didn't try to condemn it because he knows it's useless. Now, Macron is also very coherent. He also says the Iranian regime, and he's right to say that is a deadly regime that has sought destruction and death across the region, that has also fomented terrorism in the west, and that is pursuing illegal nuclear proliferation. So he's clear on the fact that basically what he's trying to say without being able to explicitly say it's, is that there's no good actor here. The whole situation is bad. And the reason why you're seeing him positioned the way he is now when it comes to trying to put together a coalition to ensure a minimum of freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, Bab el Mandeb, all the way to the Suez Canal is also driven by the fact that we are looking at possible disruptions of supply chains that are comparable to Covid days because of what's going on in the Arabian Gulf, not only because of energy prices, but also because of just the inability of big shipping lanes to function the way they usually do. And that is a central node that connects Asia to Europe. And without that, there's going to be quite a lot of problems that Europe is going to have to deal with in terms of shortages. That's why he's doing what he's doing.
- [24:01]
B
Final question to you both. You know, is this cast just something to be managed, just surviving, or can it be mastered? Is Europe stuck in this unorder or can Europe actually shape the outcome?
- [24:14]
A
No, the EU can't shape the outcome in a war like this. But what the EU can do, in addition to countries like the uk, France and Germany, is at the right time, provide good offices, help the mediators like Qatar and Oman find off ramps and build off ramps for President Trump. But also in talking to whatever remains in Iran. We don't know if this theocracy will survive. We don't know if it's going to be replaced by something. I mean, we are in very much an unknown zone here. But whatever emerges, I think the EU and Europeans can play a role in the off ramps.
- [24:52]
C
I'm actually really optimistic about European possibilities at the moment. I think we spent a lot of time mourning the end of a set of structures which were pretty difficult to defend, and not enough time thinking about what we could shape and what we could do ourselves. And by necessity, Europeans have had to wake up to the fact that a lot of their ideas about how the world would work are not going to come true. And that is leading them to think in much more creative ways, both about how you deal with some of these big global changes, how we develop our own energy transition, how we actually build up technological futures for ourselves, how we defend ourselves, how we order our relationships with other countries so we can't be blackmailed and put under coercion, whether it's energy and military coercion from Russia or economic coercion from China. And also how we organize our politics, even what the borders of the European Union are, what the European Union itself means, and these big debates about enlargement, I think they're all signs that Europe is going away from an attempt to freeze itself in aspic and to build a constitution which is almost impossible to change, and instead coming up with creative new ways of dealing with real world solutions. But it's a dangerous world out there, and we can just look at what's happening in the Middle east and see that a lot of people's livelihoods and lives are being turned upside down. And if we get these things wrong, then a lot of Europeans are going to end up suffering. But one of the big advantages we have have in Europe are our abilities to work together. And the European Union is the sort of secret source that can make this world less dangerous and which can give Europeans a way of evolving their national political systems in a way that hopefully also allows a lot of the mainstream parties that have been very, very stuck to the status quo to reinvent themselves so that you don't just get a wave of right wing populism taking over the continent and trying to blow things up in the way that Donald Trump has been doing in America.
- [27:02]
B
Well, I'm going to have the image of freeze yourself in aspic in my head from now on. That's the type of turn of phrase people can expect in your writing as well. Mark, how can we pre order your book on Unorder?
- [27:14]
C
So a book is called Surviving Chaos, Geopolitics when the Rules Fail. And you can get it from Amazon, you can get it from Publisher, which is Polity Press, and hopefully all good bookshops across the continent.
- [27:27]
B
Thank you so much, Mark.
- [27:29]
C
Thank you. It's wonderful talking to you guys.
- [27:31]
B
Remote has. Thank you so much.
- [27:33]
A
Thank you.
- [27:36]
B
Okay, that's it from us today. But if you want to hear even more, we also heartily recommend Mark's podcast for the European Council on Foreign Relations called world in 30 minutes. And for even more from us, make sure to subscribe to the Brussels Playbook podcast, the feed we're in right now. Do you have a question for me or ideas for topics we should cover? Why not send us a message or a voice Note on our WhatsApp number? You'll find it in the show Notes. Thanks to Deanna Sturris, our senior audio producer, to Sagar Ringmar, our new audio producer, and Zoe de Jourc for production support. I'm Sarah Wheaton. See you next week.