We are being treated as vassal States

This is an exceptional moment in our contemporary history. The pandemic is challenging many of our long-held views and opening the door to a number of discussions about the future. One such discussion is about the role of values and principles in international relations.

I am one of those who thinks that big powers are putting aside the norms that have regulated the relations among nations. I see them as trying to reduce others to the status of vassal states. This is the current trend, for instance, when it comes to the United States. Washington is looking at Europe as subordinated allies, as countries that must unconditionally follow the American policy decisions in matters of foreign affairs.

European sovereignty is being threatened by such an approach.

In the circumstances, the European leaders have decided to pretend that is not the case. They turn a blind eye and just hope that as we get into next year, there will a change of leadership in Washington and, consequently, a more amicable attitude towards Europe. I am not sure. In 2021, the leadership might indeed be played by a set of different actors. But I see the trend as deeper than just a passing option linked to the Trump Administration. I sense it is structural and strategic. It comes from the dangerous competition that is growing a bit out of control between the United States and China. That competition will define the coming years. Both sides will be looking for support in the community of nations. And their natural tendency, like any giant, is to force other countries to take sides. The United States and China will be pressing others into the category of client-states. 

This is a development that the global crisis is accentuating. We cannot feign to ignore it.  

Each country decides about its political options, including its international alliances

Sovereignty belongs to the people. This is a major political principle. It is a key pillar of today´s international relations. I might come from a small country, but the direction things take at home is my prerogative and of my fellow citizens. We choose. In today´s world, and particularly after the decolonisation and the fall of the Soviet empire, there is no need to ask for the neighbours ‘permission to opt for this or that political choice. It is our right. It is the right of each countries ‘citizens. We might be wrong but in the end we are the ones that will pay for the consequences. And we are ready for that. The only rule we have to take into account is about remaining within international values and conventions. We can decide about making an alliance left or right. We cannot however decide to violate human rights codes or discriminate against minorities, for instance. It is important to keep that in mind. 

Respect the national choices and you have peace

Ukraine should be able to decide about its own future. That´s the basic rule when it comes to national sovereignty. And sovereignty is still a basic tenet in terms of defining the relations between states. Even in out interdependent world, even in a more integrated Europe, sovereignty is, in the end, the fundamental pillar of any nation. 

Are we moving back to the old approach to national sovereignty?

This morning I attended a discussion about the current meaning of national sovereignty in Europe. The discussants recognised that we live now in a context of limited and shared sovereignty. As members of the EU, the countries have transferred some of their national powers to the Commission or the Council. And they have also agreed that some key decisions do require the consensus of the membership. These have been important steps towards a supranational approach to the common good.

Everybody seemed to agree that the trend towards pooled State sovereignty will continue and that there will more co-responsibility in the future and less decisions based on a narrow approach to national interests. 

I think it is good to have an optimistic view of EU´s collective will. That´s what will take us forward.

But I am not sure about the next few years. European countries give the impression they are moving back to the old views about sovereignty. That will certainly be a wrong direction. However, one should be aware of the facts. And be prepared for less. Even when we aim at more.

On people and power

The world's political environment has changed rapidly since the beginning of this century. This is in many ways related to the massive access to information and the widespread usage of low cost, accessible means of communication. The democratisation of information enhanced the citizen's awareness, self-esteem, sense of force, public participation and leverage.  Everybody is connected, has an opinion and is not afraid of voicing it, if necessary. Fast, power seems to be a click away from each individual. It has become accessible. This means, for many, a new approach towards power as people got convinced that politics is an easy job, accessible, and that they could as well as be the prime minister of their own country or the secretary-general of the UN. The symbolism and distance of power have been lost and the street turns out to be the new seat of authority.

The fact of the matter is that political leaders can no longer ignore public opinion. Even to pretend to be listening is no longer enough. If you are in charge, you better be on guard and listen!

This change has also influenced the way international affairs are conducted. Here, as in national politics, we notice the emergence of a different approach with the individual – men and women – at the centre of the global concerns. Let's take as an example the area of security, as this is a field where the concepts of sovereignty and national security, which are vague and distant for each person, have always dominated. As we moved deeper into the new century, the emphasis on human security, which is about protecting each one of us from all kinds of threats, gained ground and became an important component of the international debate.

In different words, the individual is now the main feature of the new political paradigm, both on the domestic and the international front: the citizen matters more than ever. Policy is defined taking each one of us in mind. At least, it should be, if one wants to remain in power. 

The first decade of the 21st century ended up by being deeply traumatised by the 9/11 events resulting in key western countries becoming heavily engaged in military campaigns in faraway lands, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. In my opinion, these are the last large scale interventions of the West, the final manifestations of a world that is no longer sustainable and acceptable, as sovereign debt, defence cuts and new international power relations make it clear. 

The 2000s was also a period when the different regions of the world gained greater political awareness of their own characteristics and sought to take charge of their own agenda. The launching of NEPAD, in 2001, is an illustration of such trend: Africa decided to change the way it related with the outside world. From then on, the objective became to take care of its own problems and be able to set its specific path towards the future. 

This is also a time of power shifts leading to the consolidation of new centres of influence. The old world’s authority is being challenged by the emerging powers.

As the French philosopher Michel Foucault used to say, power is not a fixed commodity, but a dynamic relationship that constantly changes. It is changing fast today.