The USA is back as a multilateral force – albeit not in the role of the “world policeman” that we Europeans have often complained about, only to then settle down comfortably in it. Rather, President Joe Biden wants to take the lead within an alliance of democratic states in reshaping the global order.
But where is Europe? 2022 will be a decisive year: Germany takes over the presidency of the G7, four European states belong to it, three of them are members of the EU. At the same time, the European Council Presidency changes from Slovenia to France. Seldom have the chances been so great, but seldom have the responsibility for a new dynamic in European development been so great!
The Franco-German engine must make the continent fit for tougher global competition: Europe needs more unity, more economic and technological success in order to strengthen its own sovereignty and, over the next ten years, a serious role in the reshaping of the global order 21st century play.
Above all, the attractiveness of the European internal market is a pound with which Europe should flourish. Even the lack of a capital markets union shows that the deepening of the internal market is far from over. The post-war order, in which western states set the rules and countries like China and India had to sit at the cat’s table of world politics, is history. We are contemporary witnesses of a tectonic shift in the global axes of power.
Top jobs of the day
Find the best jobs now and
be notified by email.
We are currently living in a transition phase without a really binding, assertive global order – a kind of “G-Zero”, as the American journalist Ian Bremmer writes. However, “G-Zero” can quickly become a “G2 world” in which the superpowers China and the USA alone determine the global rules.
Biden and Xi Jinping approach each other
The presidents of the United States and China have already begun to take steps towards a new order in the world. At the same time, the economic ties between the two rivals are growing – despite all the rhetoric of “decoupling” in the USA.
The preparation of talks to limit nuclear arsenals and joint climate protection efforts signal that both sides know that, in the end, intensified bilateral confrontation has no winners, only losers. Even Xi Jinping’s formulations about Taiwan sound different in the verbatim transcripts of the talks between the two presidents than what the media headlines of the past few weeks suggested.
Instead of conjuring up a threat of war, there was a lot of American-Chinese continuity: the continuation of Washington’s one-China policy and Beijing’s commitment to peaceful reunification. It is hard to imagine that China could destroy all the successes of the past decades with a military attack on Taiwan.
At the senior official level, Beijing and Washington have long been negotiating intensively. The recent video conference between Biden and Xi and the related agreements do not fall from the sky. The political signals of cooperation also have economic consequences: For example, China can fall back on American environmental technologies for climate protection – while we in Germany and the EU are still ashamed of having agreed an investment protection agreement with China that has still not come into force .
Foreign policy is not a request concert
As Europeans wonder whether we should choose between China and the US, Beijing and Washington are starting to rebalance their interests. It used to be called peaceful coexistence. In China and the US, global issues are also at the center of domestic politics. “Competition, cooperation, conflict” – the two powers are looking at these three “Cs”. In other words: tough competition for technologies, markets and economic success, but supplemented by cooperation on global issues.
This defuses human rights conflicts as well as conflicts in the South China Sea. One could speak of good realpolitik – if it succeeds. Foreign policy is about interests, not request concerts. It should be noted that Germany and the European Union do not (yet?) Have an appropriate strategy to assert their interests.
In doing so, they could offer China and the USA more – and also demand more: in the spirit of the Glasgow Climate Conference, for example, a joint system of prices for greenhouse gases or coordinated initiatives to protect forests not only in the Brazilian Amazon region. The three large economic areas have the strength for this.
The overall economic performance of China amounted to 17.5 percent of the global gross domestic product (GDP) last year, the USA came to 24.6 percent and the EU to 18 percent.
Europe should be more willing to take risks
In terms of purchasing power parities, China is already the world’s largest economy, which should not be a cause for concern: It is good that life expectancy has now doubled in what was once a desperately poor country, there is virtually no more illiteracy and the population has access to education and health care.
Investments, infrastructure, innovations – whoever gives up on the three big “I” s, loses the future. Even if China is pursuing ambitious goals, massively expanding research and development and increasingly exerting influence on norms and standards: the western world is still extremely innovative. The Global Innovation Index lists ten leading countries: Switzerland, Sweden, USA, UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Singapore, Germany and South Korea.
Nevertheless: Europe is too slow and not willing enough to take risks. Our innovations do not reach the size quickly enough that also makes up global weight. SAP, Celonis or Biontech are exceptions to the rule.
Europe, the USA and China are faced with a common challenge: demographic development. The proportion of young people is steadily declining, the proportion of older people over 65 is growing, most of all in China. China’s workforce could fall by up to 200 million people – with serious consequences for the economy and social systems. So the biggest challenges for China are in China itself.
In any case, Europe should focus on fair competition vis-à-vis the People’s Republic and other countries, on a rule-based global economy and value and supply chains that are as resilient as possible. We should be ready to negotiate and negotiate with Beijing. Of course there are fundamental differences and values. This will remain so. From this, however, the will must grow to resolve conflicts peacefully on the basis of value-based realpolitik. Unfortunately, this is no longer a matter of course in today’s world.
The authors: Sigmar Gabriel is a publicist and member of the board of directors at Deutsche Bank and Siemens Energy. He was chairman of the SPD from 2009 to 2017 and vice chancellor from 2013 to 2018. Rudolf Scharping is a consultant. He was Prime Minister of Rhineland-Palatinate, Minister of Defense and from 1993 to 1995 chairman of the SPD.
More: The EU needs a fresh start