Stay updated with free updates
just sign up geopolitics myFT Digest – delivered straight to your inbox.
Václav Havel’s essay “The Power of the Powerless” is probably not a prescribed text in many, if any, high schools across Europe. This should happen. A study of the importance of truth and reason in the face of forces that deny reality, it is a building block of Europe’s Enlightenment tradition. It is also a powerful reminder of the half-fulfilled political memories of those who lived behind the Iron Curtain and whose role in enriching the politics of Europe has not yet been given its due value.
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney referred to Havel’s parable of the greengrocer which ends with “Workers of the world, unite!” It shows. Sign in his shop window – not because he believes in its political message, but to live a “quiet life”. Havel says that when everyone pretends to consent, they give reality to the system that oppresses them. This is a matter of dissent: undermining the system like a little boy does a naked emperor.
Many have praised Carney’s appeal that “companies and countries should take down their signs” – that is, stop showing off. But we may find very different interpretations of what it involves. Rich countries will have to accept that they and the US are no longer on the same team, and they will have to find ways to protect liberal democratic values without the US.
However, for much of the so-called Global South, and especially for the emerging middle powers, “not living within the lie” may now mean something different. Many of them have long been against the “rules-based” system, which they believe makes some countries more equal than others. There were good reasons to feel this way, from the rich world’s initial devil-may-care approach to Covid vaccine distribution and the wildly inconsistent application of international law to various conflicts.
From this perspective, giving up pretense means giving up one’s inhibitions. Apart from the relief at an end to the hypocrisy, some countries may welcome the immoral stance on the global order. Instead of insisting on actually enforcing the rules with equal force for all, they will be tempted by the instant freedom that comes with shamelessly pursuing one’s national interests.
This is understandable. But they risk feeling that that freedom doesn’t matter if another, stronger country has an idea about how they should use it. In the absence of a hegemon to coordinate or enforce the rules of the game – even if selectively – the naked pursuit of national self-interest is at best ineffective, at worst a recipe for conflict or subordination. Even if you aren’t interested in superpowers, sooner or later they will be interested in you. Without the veil of rules to appeal to, all that is left is power.
Canada itself reflects this difficulty. Carney’s hawkish appeal came a week after he signed a partnership with China. There are good reasons to keep it. But in the context of China’s support for Russia against Ukraine, it is hardly “balancing our relationships so that their depth reflects our values”, as he said in Davos.
Chaos or superpower dominance are more likely outcomes than the “spontaneous order” of middle powers organized by occasional and distinct overlaps of interests – unless such alliances can be strengthened by institutional arrangements and a strong community of values. These alone make long-term relationships clearly beneficial enough to overcome the lust for seemingly unfettered sovereignty – the flames of which the Trump administration is energetically fanning.
Such an alternative – a reformulated but still liberal and rules-based order – can only be offered by the EU. This alone is big enough to become a pole of attraction. It still cares about the values the old system expected, at least in name. It symbolizes the order in which its members share their sovereignty.
But it will never serve as such a global anchor unless it takes seriously the efforts required for this. This means offering more tightly integrated relations with countries that still think a liberal rules-based order – one that works – is their best hope.
Instead, the EU is tempted to give up lip service without taking responsibility for the system itself. Just last week, the European Parliament launched a judicial review into delays in striking a new trade deal with South American countries, and the Commission suggested it would abandon the most-favoured-nation principle at the core of the world trading system.
Speaking the truth does not mean throwing out real values by pretending, but starting to take them seriously again. Havel, who became his country’s Communist president, knew that disagreement was necessary but only the beginning.
martin.sandbu@ft.com
