Introducing the ‘Grand Area’
In the latest edition of Progress, Brendan Simms and I unveil what we describe as the European Union’s ‘Grand Area’. We feel that this geopolitical space, which stretches like a crescent from northern Russia to the African shores of the Mediterranean, will be of fundamental importance to the security and prosperity of the European Union in the twenty-first century, just as central Europe was crucial to world affairs in the previous century. More specifically, the ‘Grand Area’ is the region just beyond the ‘European Neighbourhood’, although both are increasingly bound together for the purposes of European security. Needless to say, it is within this area that we find most of the contemporary threats and challenges to our cohesion and safety, problems that are unlikely to fade away or dissipate anytime soon.As we put it:
The broader Middle East and south Asia are regions of crucial importance to Britain and the rest of the European Union. Both form a large residual basin akin to a ‘Grand Area’—an outer perimeter of defence on which the security of the European Neighbourhood and ultimately, the European Union, depends. The security of the Union depends on the security of the Neighbourhood and the security of the Neighbourhood in turn is determined by the situation in the Grand Area. Working alongside the United States, the European Union must become more strategically involved in what is emerging as the geopolitical shatter-belt of the 21st century.
By this, we mean that the international reach of the European Union must be expanded in the coming years. We must enhance our ability to project power into the ‘Grand Area’, not only for the purposes of geopolitical engineering, but also to sustain our energy supplies, and produce forms of society and government more conducive to our liberal values and to our liking. Given the rise or resurgence of other powers in recent years—not least the People’s Republic of China and Russia—we Europeans must ensure that our foothold is solid and firm in Asia and the Middle East. Failure to engage strategically in the ‘Grand Area’ will mean that others will do so instead, not only reducing our influence, but also empowering forces unlikely to have our interests very high on their list of priorities.
The concept of the ‘Grand Area’—particularly when presented in cartographical form, such as in the map below—might help Europeans to think more spatially and geopolitically. This will be essential in the production of a more strategic and coherent European foreign and security policy in the years to come, especially after the reforms are implemented as laid out in the Treaty of Lisbon.
Map of the European Union and the ‘Grand Area’

• Please click here to read the rest of the article.

4 comments:
It's only an unreal dream without Catholic Christianity and Roman Imperialism, without the symphony of the true Chruch (pontifex maximus - pope) and the true Empire (imperator - emperor).
Dead body without a true soul.
I think the EU should be also giving some special attention to Latin America. Specially the south (Chile, Argentina, Brazil) has many well educated people who would love to come to work for a few years in Europe. I know from friends from this region, that its actualy very hard and intrasparent to get all the documents to work in Europe. So most people just don't give it a try.
Another advantage is, that culturaly these countries are very close to Europe, meaning integration is much easier.
I think the economic realtions are more important, influence is reached by economic power. A strong link between Europa and the US (I have added a map to clarify)
http://www.atlantica.org/media/images/world_trade_map.jpg
Also the economic link between China and Afrika is growing so your map might not be correct anymore. (See link for growing trade and investments by China in Afrika)
http://chinaperspectives.revues.org/document519.html
To Anonymous: I quite agree that we in Europe should take a greater interest in South America, particularly as Beijing seeks to penetrate the continent for resources and political influence.
To Nite: I disagree with you. The economic system constructed since the end of the Second World War—and with roots right back into the eighteenth century—was put in place with political power and sustained by at first British, then American, naval might. Without political and military power, the economic and international trading system will crumple, much as it did during the period 1914-1945 when British primacy gave way to that of the United States. It is a delusion to think that economic influence and diplomatic exchange are sufficient to sustain our security.
Post a Comment