The European Superpower [Paperback]

There have been several books published in the last couple of years on the subject of the European Union as a superpower, but most have been written by journalists or retired diplomats, and they are not very academically rigorous - they often tell a lot of good anecdotes without much to tie the stories together. McCormick's book offers a new approach by basing its arguments on sound international relations theory, and on a lot of the key arguments that have flown back and forth about Europe, America, and the transatlantic relationship since the Iraq war. OK, this description probably makes the book sound dense and academic, but have no fear - it is short, precise, carefully structured, and written in a way that makes it accessible for readers coming from almost any background.

The opening chapter sets the foundations by looking at the changing nature of power, and arguing that we're all too obsessed by the link between state power and military arsenals - instead he argues that power can be expressed without bombs, just as the EU is doing with its "soft power". A key argument he makes: power today is wielded not by those who control the means of destruction, but by those who control the means of production.

Chapter 2 gives a quick survey of the history of transatlantic relations, showing how the USA helped the growth of the EU, both consciously and unconsciously. Chapters 3-6 then look in turn at how the EU is flexing its muscles on the economic, political, and cultural fronts, and even how it is using military power in a way that is designed to keep the peace rather than force countries to its will. The concluding chapter makes some challenging arguments about what Europe represents in the world today.

Not everyone is going to agree with McCormick's arguments, but after reading his book - and those by people like T R Reid and Mark Leonard - I'm beginning to sense a sea-change in thinking about the power of the European Union. McCormick makes some compelling and original arguments, and no-one interested in the place of the EU in the world can afford not to read his book.

This book is poor: simplistic, full of gross generalisations, selective facts to underline random points and grossly eurocentric.
The author claims to be arguing that the EU represents a new superpower, due to the changing nature of power in the world today.
The term superpower is never clearly defined, although it is implicitly clear that the EU is a "superpower" because power is not exercised only through "hard" means, that is, military, power, but as much through "soft" means, that is, economics, values, etc. Until this point, I agree with the author, that the EU is a "civilian power" in today's multipolar world, where power is exercised through different means.
The author talks continually about the "bipolar" world, that is, EU versus USA: "...there has been a diminution of America's unipolar auhtority, encouraged by the rise of Europe, and allowing the European superpower to step into the breach, thereby creating a new bipolar international order" (p. 161). This is contrary to a multipolar world, and in spite of the "soft" power and "post-modern" world he constantly refers to, he implicitly sees world politics as a balance of power/zero-sum game; for instance a comment like "In economic terms, at least, we are now clearly living in a bipolar world" (p. 86), totally ignores economic interdependence.
Furthermore, the author never mentions any other country: the world is apparently an EU-US sphere, and China, India, Russia, Japan... - none of these matter in his narrow bipolar world view.
While I agree that the EU has created prosperity and achieved a lot, his uncritical praise for European values, products, economics, etc. smells more of old-fashioned euro-centrism like when "Civilization, Christianity and Commerce" was brought to the world by Europeans in the 19th century... He says EU's values and commerce are a soft power, which I don't generally disagree on, but when he makes a map of EU's "gravitational pull" and uncritically includes for instance Russia, Israel and Turkey, he seems out of touch with reality.

If the book had been about the decline of US power, it may qualify as a somehow decent book, since this issue fills around half the book. But the problem is also that you cannot define someone's rise on the other's decline!
Also, while he talks of their "decline", it is a criticism of (current) US policies (rightful, I agree on the criticism, but not the conclusions he draws from it). I think most people would agree that with a change in those policies, the US could potentially exercise massive of what he calls "soft power"!
When you talk about the EU as a superpower, you cannot just dismiss the problems EU has, which the author largely does: divisions on Iraq, the shame about the former Yugoslavia, Russia, Turkey, enlargement... The challenges the EU stands in front of, which are many, are only dismissed as if they didn't matter.

His generalisations are one of the most worrying aspects of this book, and it is outright hypocritical when he says, "There is also a danger in trying to make generalizations..."(p. 166). Already on the following page, table 7.1 presents one gross generalisation on "Europeanism" and "Americanism", where he might as well have put "Good" (Europeanism) and "Evil" (Americanism).
And what is "Europe" for the author anyway? It is clearly France and Germany. That some European countries ("Atlanticists") supported the US invasion of Iraq, is hardly discussed but opnely dismissed.... This is a bit like when Chirac in 2003 chided candidate countries of the EU as "US trojan horses."
Other generalisations are simply too many to mention. And even worse, some conclusions are simply preposterous, like linking slightly lower average life expectancy in USA than in EU-15 on higher quality of life and shorter working hours (p. 106).
This is not serious academic work.
Besides these type of conclusions, his selective usage of statistics (although he has a lot, giving the book a false authority) is also preposterous. He avoids the statistics when they do not seem to support his points: Europeans are suspicious of the US, but are not nationalistic and have "good" secular values... Gross generalizations!
All in all, one is left with an impression of nothing in common between the US and the EU, a coming conflict if you may:
"Europeans and Americans agree on the pursuit and promotion of democracy and capitalism, but when they disagree so much on social values it becomes more difficult to see how they can agree on political objectives"(p. 156)

Well, if these two powers, the leaders of the western world, cannot agree with each other, it is unlikely that either side will be able to discuss with other countries with whom they agree even on less....
The author thinks the EU can promote dialogue and consensus, but if this is not the case with the closest ally, the US, whom does he think the EU would be able to dialogue with then...?

Don't bother with this book if you want any serious academic book on the EU in international relations.