Brexit and the Balance of Power
![Brexit and the Balance of Power](https://www.azernews.az/media/pictures/nye_joe.jpg)
By Joseph S. Nye
Current polls show a closely divided electorate. Prime Minister
David Cameron claims that the concessions he has won from Britain’s
EU partners should lay to rest popular concerns about a loss of
sovereignty to Brussels and an influx of foreign workers from
Eastern Europe. But Cameron’s Conservative Party and his own
cabinet are deeply divided, while London’s populist mayor, Boris
Johnson, has joined the supporters of British exit.
The question of the costs and benefits of British membership in the
EU divides the British press as well. Many mass-circulation
publications support “Brexit,” whereas the financial press supports
continued membership. The Economist, for example, points out that
some 45% of British exports go to other EU countries, and that the
atmosphere for negotiating a post-Brexit trade deal would likely be
frosty.
Moreover, the EU has made clear to non-members such as Norway and
Switzerland that they can have full access to the single market
only if they accept most of its rules, including the free movement
of people, and contribute to the EU budget. In other words, a
Britain outside the Union would gain little in terms of
“sovereignty”; on the contrary, it would lose its vote and
influence over the terms of its participation in the single market.
Meanwhile, rival financial centers such as Paris and Frankfurt
would seize the chance to establish rules that would help them win
back business from London.
Another complication is political: the rise of nationalism in
Scotland and the effect of Brexit on the survival of the United
Kingdom. In 2014, Scotland voted in its own referendum to remain in
the UK; but the nationalists won almost all of Scotland’s seats in
the general election eight months later. With Scottish opinion much
more pro-European than in England, many believe that Brexit would
lead to another referendum on independence. Cameron could be
remembered as the prime minister who helped break up the UK (and
possibly Europe).
In the United States, President Barack Obama’s administration has
stated clearly its belief that Britain and Europe are both stronger
together. Illusions of a special relationship with the US replacing
the influence of Europe are mistaken. But the British people will
weigh whether to support Brexit, and an American hand on the scale
could be counter-productive.
At the same time, in the words of Douglas Alexander, the former
Labour shadow foreign secretary, “since the end of World War II,
America has been the system operator of international order built
on a strong, stable Transatlantic Alliance supported by the twin
pillars of NATO and the EU. If Britain leaves the EU, America’s
closest ally would be marginalized….and the whole European project
at risk of unraveling at precisely the time new economic and
security threats confront the West.” It is no wonder that Vladimir
Putin’s Kremlin would welcome Brexit and meddles in European
countries’ domestic politics to try to weaken the EU.
The geopolitical consequences of Brexit might not appear
immediately. The EU might even temporarily pull together. But there
would be damage to Europe’s sense of mission and its soft power of
attraction. Ensuring financial stability and managing immigration
would be much more difficult as well.
In addition to a revival of Scottish separatism, Britain’s inward
turn in recent years could accelerate. And over the longer run, the
effects on the global balance of power and the liberal
international order – in which Britain has a strong national
interest – would be negative.
When it acts as an entity, Europe is the largest economy in the
world, and its population of nearly 500 million is considerably
larger than America’s 325 million. It has the world’s largest
market, represents 17% of world trade, and dispenses half of the
world’s foreign assistance. It also has 27 universities ranked in
the top 100 worldwide, and its creative industries contribute about
7% to its GDP. American per capita income is higher, but in terms
of human capital, technology, and exports, Europe is very much an
economic peer.
In terms of military expenditure, Europe is second only to the US,
accounting for 15% of the world total, compared to 12% for China
and 5% for Russia. Of course, that number is somewhat misleading,
given Europe’s lack of military integration. France and Britain are
the two major sources of European expeditionary power.
European and US resources are mutually reinforcing. Direct
investment in both directions is higher than with Asia, and
US-European trade is more balanced than US trade with Asia. At the
cultural level, Americans and Europeans share the values of
democracy and human rights more with each other than with any other
world regions.
Faced with a rising China, a declining but risk-inclined Russia,
and the prospect of prolonged turmoil in the Middle East, close
transatlantic cooperation will be crucial to maintaining a liberal
international order over the long term. Recognizing that Brexit, by
weakening both Europe and Britain, would make a disorderly
international system more likely, should tip the balance in favor
of maintaining the status quo.
Copyright: Project Syndicate: Brexit and the Balance of Power
---
Follow us on Twitter @AzerNewsAz