ABSTRACT
This book contends that a common thread weaves its way through the evolution of European foreign policies in a number of key policy areas. This is the narrative of a shift away from liberal internationalism. The book has not offered the standard institutionally oriented account of European Union (EU) foreign policies. In complementing the already rich literature offering such an institutional perspective, this book has deliberately sought to prune the overarching trend to its core. Evidence has been presented of Europe’s wavering adherence to the basic tenets of liberal internationalism in the areas of trade and finance, multilateral relations, security and counter-terrorism, democracy and human rights, conflict resolution, development cooperation and energy policy. In a context in which the EU’s essential liberal internationalist credentials
are more widely assumed than they are questioned, the book’s critique might seem harsh – even over-stated. But the claim made is not that European foreign policy is completely devoid of liberal or cosmopolitan substance. The EU does exhibit some degree of embedded liberalism. The book has not sought to go through every normative achievement with a fine-tooth comb; rather, its purpose has been to highlight that a strong illiberal counter-current has gathered momentum. The cynic will point out that the EU has never been the perfect liberal internationalist. This is absolutely true, and the book does not suggest otherwise. But standing back from the minutiae of day-to-day decision-making and the dense detail of policy initiatives in individual regions and policy spheres, something of an overarching trend is detectable. And this is a trend towards a more defensive and illiberal approach to global challenges. This illiberalism applies at different levels. It is seen in the nature of behind-
the-rhetoric European positions on multilateral cooperation; commercial openness and reactions to the financial crisis; combating poverty in the developing world; climate change; the place of geopolitics in energy security; the role of illiberal politics as a solution to conflict and development within third countries; and structural changes in the international sphere. The book has revealed a number of reasons for this drift in policy. A feeling
prevails that liberal approaches struggle to gain traction. European governments judge that liberalism today goes against the grain, that the liberal world
order is an increasingly hazy mirage shimmering on a vanishing horizon. The short-term urgency attached to new security and economic challenges militates against the kind of long-term holistic strategic thinking that underpins cosmopolitan internationalism. Resistance from governments in other parts of the world has led Europeans to question the normative legitimacy of liberal universalism. Defence of liberalism in some quarters today seems to verge on the politically incorrect. The feeling is widespread that markets and liberal democracy have not worked across large swathes of the planet. European governments exude a sentiment that liberal internationalism serves well when times are good, but is a luxury that can be ill afforded when times are tough. The book’s aim has not been to delve deeply into theory; nevertheless, it is clear from the account that, in explanatory terms, a familiar, mutually conditioning mixture of structure and agency is at work. The questioning of liberal internationalism has both an ethical and a real-
politik component. The realpolitik component holds that self-interest requires the EU to rein back from an ‘excessive’ commitment to idealist internationalism. The normative component is the accusation that power asymmetry rather than genuine universalism lies at liberal internationalism’s heart – the latter is widely slammed as perpetuating nothing more than the West’s own particular concept of morality. Neither of these two critical components offers a convincing guide for Eur-
opean foreign policy. Injudicious and non-reflexive liberalism is certainly to be avoided. But so is a knee-jerk recoil in the face of new challenges. The peddling of ‘liberal imperialism’ has not helped. Critics have enjoyed much influence in conjuring up a range of ills they attribute to liberal internationalism: the aggressive use of force; unrestrained, anti-development capitalism; context-alien political models. In their actions and not just through their fine rhetoric, few European governments seem willing unequivocally to rebut these supposed associations – associations that have taken root, but which are facile and just plain wrong. Excess and imbalance is quite clearly contrary to the spirit of liberal internationalism. Both self-interest and ethics call for a pragmatic cosmopolitanism.
