STATECRAFT, LEADERSHIP, AND GEOSTRATEGIC VISIONS

CENTER
FOR RESEARCH
ON GEOPOLITICS C R G

___________________________________________________________

Special Report No. 164

Bertil Haggman

Statecraft, Leadership, and New Geostrategic Visions

2003 (revised 2007)
________________________________________________

Center for Research on Geopolitics (CRG), Sweden
Director: Mr. Bertil Haggman, LL.M., author. E-mail: bertilhaggman@hotmail.com

Introduction

The extension of the European Union to comprise a number of countries of Central and Eastern Europe from 2004 has resulted in a debate on the future of the EU. Already German unity and the movement of the German capital from Bonn to Berlin contributed to a shift from west to east.

A new important book published recently (Carnes Lord, The Modern Prince – What Leader’s Need To Know, Yale University Press, 2003) is bringing attention to statecraft and leadership based on Niccolò Machiavelli, the great Italian. The author of the book, professor of strategy at the American Naval War College with extensive government experience, underlines the importance of statecraft also in the modern democratic era. In the first decade of the twentyfirst century revolutionary transformations have been occured to change the direction of statecraft. The latter term is rarely analyzed carefully in relation to leadership. Today statecraft is mainly used to refer to diplomacy or conduct of foreign policy but clearly it is also related to leadership. One would think that the art of leadership means less in modern democratic states, which is not true.

The present era is a time of transformation after the Cold War. The American founding was a project that broke with European imperialism introducing democratic republicanism, federalism, and constitutional government. Important have also been conservative transformers in other parts of the world: Otto von Bismarck, Victor Emmanuel III of Savoy, the Meji reformers of Japan, and Kemal Ataturk of Turkey.

The transformers mentioned can be regarded as representative of what the great Italian student of statecraft, Niccollò Machiavelli, termed virtù, a comprehensive political excellence.

New European Directions

The movement eastward on the European continent that started with the unification of Germany will increase from 2004 and onward. The Central and East Europeans see the links with the United States as a security against a revival of Russian imperialism. Spain, Portugal and Italy regard close relations to the United States as vital support against the revival of fundamentalist Islam.

While Bonn and Paris were relatively close geographically Berlin will likely in the future have other considerations. France, an old colonial country, has less interest in what is happening in Eastern Europe.

Meanwhile French influence in the world seems to be weakening. The economy has problems and the centralized French system of government is ineffective. In today’s Europe there is a movement toward regionalism.

Unlike in the United States parliament seems to have lost real influence. A French president is not accountable to the elected representatives of the people but mainly to media and “the French street”. The prime minister is more or less in the hands of the president. In a Europe that is looking to democratic national parliaments as important more or less everything in France is managed by the president. The result is that the performance for a well functioning state has decreased. The president is in danger of loosing touch with the country and its problems. Placid authoritarianism mixed with sudden demagogic outbursts is dominating. French politics generally has a certain air of unseriousness about it.

The reunited Germany has an old history of relations in Central Europe. It has now to deal with the contacts to neighboring Poland and the Czech Republic but also countries in Southeastern Europe. Germany has, like the two latter states, much to gain from keeping the old Atlantic links open when working on reconciliation in Central and Eastern Europe.

The long and often peaceful history of Germany in Eastern Europe was broken in World War II and there are still wounds to be healed. Such a process would not be helped by a Franco-German alliance but rather by good American-German relations in a framework also including Great Britain, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, and Spain. Such a framework would protect against resurgent nationalism in Germany and hasten the healing of wounds from the 1930s and 1940s. Thus could the question of expulsion of Germans from their homes in the east best be treated in a European context.

Protecting Against Outside Threats

Europe during the Cold War neglected the military. Repeated suggestions by the United States that European countries should build stronger military were ignored. European leaders were content to let their countries live under the American defense umbrella.

Some European leaders seem to have underestimated the security challenges of our time. They see the European Union as a peace project in a world without threats as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The United States as leading world power has with the leadership of President George W. Bush understood that our world is a dangerous place. It might well be that the technological superiority of the West will prevail. It is important, however, to remind of Machiavelli’s words:

“…all armed prophets won and the unarmed came to ruin…Friar Girolamo Savonarola…came to ruin in his new orders…[unarmed prophets] have great difficulty in proceeding, and all dangers are in their way, and it is necessary that they overcome them by virtue;”

Machiavelli had seen the Dominican priest Girolamo Savonarola (1452 – 1498), who founded the Florentine Republic, be burned at the stakes and the people blaming him for defeat. Thus the Italian philosopher understood well the necessity of strong arms. Some leaders of the European Union close their eyes, at least publicly, to outer threats such as international terrorism waged by fundamentalist Islamic fanatics. Leaders of weak or defenseless democracies are doomed to geostrategic defeat.

In the beginning of the 1980s the United States abandoned containment of Soviet Russia as a policy. Instead the roll-back of Soviet influence resulted in regime collapse. In the time of grave danger to the West the possibility of great power conflict has not gone away. It is not out of question that the People’s Republic of China can emerge as a serious military threat to the West. Weapons of Mass Destruction are not the only danger in today’s Hobbesian world.

Just as in the past (against the communist and the nazi threats) the question of defense of liberal democracy is a security and a military question. Liberal democracy would not have survived World War II and the Cold War without strong defense. In reality much of the successes of Hitler and Stalin were due to the fact that the democracies of the West had not been preparing adequately for the rising totalitarian threat. Instead many leaders thought it was possible to negotiate with the tyrants.

A Coming Shift ?

An important problem with Europe is the aging populations, the high taxation and the rising welfare costs, which do not allow for necessary high defense costs. It is most likely that the present generation of young Europeans will realize that the post-Cold War leaders have not prepared them for what is to come. Their nations are to a great extent not ready for the threats of the future. November 11, 2001, was a paradigm shift and the first Western leader to understand the danger was President Bush. No doubt, as the war on terror progresses, there will be a shift away from welfare and to higher preparedness.

Nations on the European continent that do not understand in 2003 the dangers posed by countries such as Iran, Syria and North Korea will in the future have to face these regimes more clearly. The leaders of Europe have to understand that high technology is a revolution. They have to prepare for the future and understand that this revolution includes military technology.

Conclusions

At present countries like Germany and France are lagging behind in the evolution. High unemployment and sinking GDPs call for reforms. If the governing politicians don’t understand the importance of security, this could have a catastrophic impact on Europe.

As France does not seem willing to accept the necessity of change Germany has a responsibility. As continental Europe’s largest nation its position is central. It has experienced both the dictatorships of Hitler and Stalin. This should lead Berlin to accept greater defense burdens in the interest of all Europeans. Germany’s experience is similar to the Central and East European. The nations that were freed from Soviet and Russian domination when communist tyranny fell in the beginning of the 1990s,
including East Germany, need reconciliation and work for liberty. This clearly is demanding a new generation of German leaders actively working with the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe.

Professor Lord’s new book is crucial for understanding the new geostrategic visions and modern leadership. It is an important work and helps to define the ongoing transformations since the Cold War.