“Europe will shape the 21st century”, Discours de Jean-Noël Barrot, ministre de l’Europe et des affaires étrangères, à l’Université de Columbia (New York)

Thank you very much for this warm welcome. It’s good to be back at Columbia. I’m saying “back” because 20 years ago, as I was starting my PhD, I spent a summer of research on this beautiful campus. I was not within SIPA. I was at the Business school, but it was still a very wonderful summer.

What I would like to discuss this afternoon is the role that we can expect Europe to play in the upcoming decades in the 21^st century.

We are now living through a moment of profound transformation, a moment when the world is not just changing; it is accelerating and also hardening. Many will tell that the trajectory is already written, that the 21st century will be defined by one single story: the rivalry between two superpowers, the incumbent superpower and the rising superpower. A rivalry that will inevitably lead to some form of confrontation, and that will force every nation, and every one of us, to pick sides. And the idea I would like to promote in front of you is that, in this geopolitical equation, there is an unknown variable. And this unknown variable is Europe. That Europe can dramatically change this geopolitical equation.

But before I get there, let me say, as I was earlier at the United Nations, that force has never disappeared from international relations. It was never abolished, not by international law, not by global institutions. It was disciplined on a simple idea—one that French philosopher Blaise Pascal captured centuries ago: « Justice without force is powerless. Force without justice is tyranny. » So the challenge has always been the same: make sure that what is strong is just, and strengthen what is just.

Throughout the 20th century, we’ve tried to strike this balance.

After World War One, the League of Nations was a first attempt, an admirable one, but incomplete. Because it asked states to renounce force without giving them the means to trust that others would do the same. So the balance was not struck.

After World War Two, we learned from those failures, and the United Nations were born, the Bretton Woods institutions. Those did not deny power. They organized it. They structured it. They made it predictable.

Let’s not be naïve. The great powers did not embrace this system out of charity. They embraced it because stability, predictability, and order serve their interests better than chaos. They also benefited from a privileged position, with permanent seats at the UN Security Council and veto power. Without that arrangement, no lasting multilateral system would have held.

And no country benefited more from it than the leading Power of the 20th century: the United States of America. The US reaped extraordinary, exorbitant dividends from multilateralism.

Security dividends. Through UN peacekeeping missions, the US relied on others to help uphold global stability. Through the non-proliferation regime, it avoided the spiral of a nuclear arms race.

And through NATO, it did more than guarantee the security of the North Atlantic; it also created a market—one that sustained the strength of the American defense industry. 

Monetary dividend. Under Bretton Woods, the dollar became the world’s reserve currency. That meant something very simple: the US could finance their economy, but also their budget deficit, more cheaply than anyone else.

Deficits became easier to sustain. Monetary dividend.

And commercial dividend. Through the GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and later, thanks to the WTO, American firms—especially in finance and digital services—were able to scale globally with few barriers in their way.

Yet things began to shift.

The balance of power, carefully assembled over decades, started to loosen with the end of the Cold War. The collapse of the Soviet bloc was read, in the West, as final proof that the Western model had won: a world governed by law, organized by markets, anchored in democracy. The “end of History” was celebrated at exactly the moment when, actually, history was starting again. The American hyperpower, confident and unchallenged, began to bend the very rules it had once defended.

For much of the world, this was not a moment of emancipation. It felt like supervision. The memory of colonial domination had not disappeared, nor the resentment of structural adjustment programs, nor the scars of unilateral interventions. Frustration gave way to something sharper: a desire for revanche.

Russia saw NATO’s expansion as a form of aggression.

China saw in liberal economics and human rights a system built without it. 

Across large parts of the world, multilateralism began to look less like a shared framework and more like a Western construction, a system designed by the West for the West.

Ignoring that perception does not make it disappear. It just means that you no longer understand the world that you live in.

Nowhere has this dynamic been more powerful than in China, a civilization that thinks in centuries, a civilization that sees itself not as rising, but as returning from what it calls the “century of humiliation,” from the Opium Wars to imperial collapse. And the speed of that return has been staggering. In just four decades, China has transformed itself. Its share of global GDP rose from 2% to nearly 20%—a shift in the center of gravity of the world economy. This transformation lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty.

With prosperity came something else: ambition. To reclaim a central role in the international order, and to stand, eventually, as a peer—if not more—to the incumbent superpower, the United States.

China has been methodical. It has mobilized every lever of power, deliberately, patiently, systematically.

Economic power. Last year, China posted a trade surplus of over one trillion dollars. That’s not a coincidence. It’s the result of a strategy, an aggressive industrial policy designed not just to grow… but to shape dependencies. Dependencies on rare earths—where China controls around 90% of refining. Dependencies on supply chains, on shipping, on ports and logistics networks spanning more than 150 countries through the Belt and Road Initiative.

Diplomatic power. China invests heavily in influence—bilaterally, regionally, globally. Through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, it anchors its neighborhood. Through BRICS, it challenges the diplomatic dominance of the G7—positioning itself as the voice of a “Global South” dissatisfied with the Western-led order. Today, BRICS outweighs the G7, both in population and in economic weight.

Military power. The People’s Liberation Army counts over two million personnel, the largest in the world. China also fields the world’s biggest Navy by number of ships, and a missile arsenal designed with one purpose: keep American forces at a distance.

The objective is clear: secure its region, deter intervention, and over time, reach strategic parity.

Put it all together, and the picture is unmistakable. China is not only rising. It is positioning itself to lead, to become what it believes it has always been destined to be: the Middle Kingdom.

And as China rises, the United States faces a familiar and dangerous trap, what some have called the Thucydides trap, described over two thousand years ago: the tension between a dominant power and a rising one, a tension that often leads to confrontation. Look back to five centuries before Christ. Sparta faced it when Athens rose, and it chose war to prevent Athens from reaching dominance. The Peloponnesian War. Thirty years later, both cities, Sparta and Athens, were exhausted by war. And then came a third actor: Macedonia, which went on to conquer the Greek world.

Macedonia did not win by chance. It won because, while others were fighting or confronting, it prepared. It reformed.

Militarily, it forged a professional army, developed new weapons, and perfected the phalanx.

Politically, it centralized authority and built a new disciplined elite.

Financially, it created a stable currency and mobilized its resources for long-term ambitions.

While others were exhausting themselves in endless wars, Macedonia was positioning itself as a third actor. You might start thinking where I’m trying to go there.

Today, in Washington, China is indeed seen as the defining geopolitical challenge of our time. And the response has been building through time.

Tariffs targeting hundreds of billions of dollars of Chinese goods.

The banning of TikTok.

Visa restrictions on Chinese students and researchers working in sensitive fields.

The blacklisting of Chinese firms—cut off from U.S. infrastructure and public procurement.

Export controls on microprocessors, semiconductors, and advanced chips.

A massive reinforcement of U.S. military presence in the Pacific.

An attempted rapprochement with Russia—seeking to pull Moscow away from Beijing, in a reversal of Nixon’s strategy.

A military intervention in Latin America aimed at reshaping control over an oil-producing country central to China’s supply.

Territorial claims over a European territory under NATO protection—justified as a way to prevent Chinese access to the North Atlantic.

These are not isolated moves. They form a pattern, a strategy of containment.

And so we find ourselves far from the spirit of 1945, far from the UN Charter.

Instead, we are entering in a world of competing orders: China advancing its own vision of global governance, the United States proposing new structures—such as the Board of Peace.

Where does this lead?

At best, to a fragmented world, split into spheres of influence.

At worst, to direct confrontation between two permanent members of the Security Council, two equipped nations.

So the question becomes: is this inevitable? Are we condemned to choose? To align or to submit?

I don’t believe we are, because of Macedonia. Because in this equation, that is complex, unstable, and still unfolding, there is one variable that can change the outcome.

One variable that is not yet fully played. That variable is Europe.

Yes, Europe is the X-factor in today’s geopolitical equation.

Why? Well, because this is where resistance to the brutalization of the world is indeed taking shape. Because from Southeast Asia to Latin America, across Africa, free people and that are willing to remain so are watching Europe, waiting for it to step up, and waiting for it to lead.

In a world increasingly forced to choose between submission and confrontation, Europe is expected where it has always been strongest: in the ability to chart a third path, a demanding path—anchored in national sovereignty and in respect for international law.

More and more states, attached to their independence, are refusing the logic of blocs. They are looking for balance. They are looking for space. They are looking for an alternative. And today, that alternative depends on one thing: a stronger Europe.

That is why Europe is, in my view, the X-factor.

Some would rather see Europe as a political organization weakened. Others would prefer it divided. Many would be more comfortable if it simply disappeared from the equation.

On the Chinese side, the strategy is subtle. Beijing is working to bypass Europe as a Union—engaging capitals one by one, building bilateral ties while skirting the EU institutions themselves.

On the American side, the challenge is more explicit. In the National Security Strategy published in December 2025, Europe is portrayed as weakened: undermined by migration, constrained in its freedoms, repressive towards political opposition.

A continent condemned to “civilizational erasure.”

The logic is easy to see. A fragmented Europe is easier to dominate. A divided Europe is easier to align. A dependent Europe becomes a secondary player.

But no—Europe is not on the brink of erasure.

European civilization is not fragile. It is a civilization of the mind, forged over more than two millennia, through conflict and reconciliation, through failure and renewal. A civilization that has known the worst and produced the best.

Stefan Zweig called Europe a “forge of ideas” and he was right. From the encounter of Latin, Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, and Slavic worlds emerged ideas that reshaped history. And it is precisely this capacity—to absorb, to transform, and to create—that gives Europe its civilizational depth.

Europe was here before. It will be here long after. This is a civilization that has faced division—again and again—and each time, found a way to rise above it.

Europe has given so much to the world. It has shaped ideas, sparked revolutions, and defined what we mean by freedom and democracy.

This continent gave birth to one of the most ambitious political constructions in history: the European Union, born on May 9, 1950, in Paris at the Foreign Affairs Ministry.

Eight decades of peace.

Eight decades of democracy.

Eight decades of prosperity.

Look at the world today. Ten countries are candidates to join the European Union. What other political project inspires such attraction? And I’m saying ten, but that does not include Iceland or even Canada.

In Tbilisi, in Georgia, on the Maidan in 2014, people stood together, waved the European flag, and singing the European anthem as a symbol of hope. What other political ideal inspires that kind of passion?

Look at the outcomes. People live more freely in Europe. They live longer and in better health. Life expectancy is higher, about four years longer than in the US or China. Infant mortality is lower—often half as low. Inequality is lower as well.

This is a model worth defending.

When great powers compete without restraint, bear in mind that they also weaken themselves. And they create space for others. This is the moment that we are going to live. And Europe is stepping up. It is stepping up into the space that is made available and seizing the opportunity.

Since 2017, and the Sorbonne speech delivered by President Macron, calling for European strategic autonomy—we have moved, on security, prosperity, and democracy - three values at the heart of Europe’s priorities.

On Security.

For years, speaking of European defence was a taboo. We were told it would weaken NATO. Today, that debate is behind us. European defence is becoming a reality. This shift is visible in concrete terms: new strategic frameworks, stronger coordination, a greater role for the European Commission, the reactivation of the European Defence Agency, and new European funding instruments—with a clear and assumed European preference.

And sure, Ukraine has been a turning point. Some believed that Europe could not sustain Ukraine without the United States, that peace would be decided elsewhere. Reality proved otherwise. And as we are speaking, Ukraine is gaining ground after having survived one of the toughest winters in recent history, while Russia is failing—failing militarily, with north of 1 million casualties since the beginning of this war and more than 1 000 casualties per day on the front line; failing economically as well, with an economy that is turning into a train wreck.

We’re preparing for peace. We launched the Coalition of the Willing. And we built something new. Today, Europeans—together with partners such as Norway, the United Kingdom, and Canada—are delivering the bulk of support to Ukraine and preparing the security guarantees for the future. We support American diplomatic efforts.

But we ensure that our interests are not overlooked. Because peace cannot mean capitulation. And it cannot come at the expense of European security. Europe is now taking responsibility for its security.

On Prosperity.

European economy faces a dual pressure: Chinese competition and American tariffs. Even countries that once ran surpluses with China are now running deficits. Even Germany—long the industrial benchmark—has lost tens of thousands of jobs to China. The response must be clear—and now it’s beginning to be.

First: shelter our market from unfair competition.

Europe is not just a marketplace. It is an economic power—and it must act like one. That shift is underway. From steel to clean tech, from chemicals to automotive, Europe is deploying trade defence instruments.

Tariffs on heavily subsidized Chinese electric vehicles are one example. European preference is no longer a concept. It is emerging as a policy.

Second: strengthen competitiveness.

A market of 450 million people must become a true economic force. That means less fragmentation. Simpler rules. A deeper single market. Capital markets union. Integrated energy systems. All these reforms are on the table, and we are working to turn them into reality.

Third: invest.

Europe must invest more—and faster—in strategic technologies such as AI, quantum, space, and green tech. We have the capacity. Europe holds the largest pool of savings in the world. Yet too much of it flows abroad. This is not sustainable, and it is beginning to change.

Fourth: diversify.

Europe is expanding its partnerships—recently with India—to open new markets and reduce dependencies. Because resilience comes from choice.

And Europe has what investors are looking for: a stable currency, a predictable regulatory environment, world-class infrastructure, a highly skilled workforce. In a world of uncertainty, Europe offers something rare: trust.

Security, prosperity, democracy.

Europe’s independence is about protecting freedoms: the freedom to decide, to speak out, to vote, to move, to pray. Our democracy and the rule of law are the guarantors of those freedoms. This is why we have done so much to protect our democratic space.

Defending academic freedom. Protecting the independence of science. Preserving an open—but regulated—information space. A space where ideas circulate freely, but where choices are not dictated by opaque algorithms. This is the purpose of the regulations that were adopted recently.

The rise in information manipulation and disinformation is dividing our societies and eroding democracy. This is a major threat. That is why we are building a European Democratic Shield. We will set up a European Centre for Democratic Resilience that will bring together all the expertise and capacity across Member States and neighboring countries—to fight disinformation and protect our elections. 

So, just like Macedonia during the Peloponnesian War, Europe is building its muscles.

Security, prosperity, and democracy: this is how Europe is preparing itself for a world of rising rivalry between two blocs. Not by choosing sides, but by building strength and power on its own terms.

And in doing so, Europe is not just serving itself. It is actually serving the world by keeping open —or let’s say, by opening and keeping open not a strait, but a third path. A path that refuses both submission and confrontation.

Europe is indeed serving the world. Because Europe is standing up for freedom and sovereignty wherever it is threatened. In an age of polarization, Europe can be a buffer, a stabilizing force for many countries that rely on it, a force that absorbs shocks and rises above them, a force that keeps the system from breaking apart.

Europe is standing up for the vast majority of people.

So, if you are asked today what defines the global geopolitical landscape, one thing is certain: Europe is rising.

So friends—watch Europe. Watch it closely.

If you are looking for power, look at Europe.

If you are looking for stability, look at Europe.

If you are looking for opportunity, look at Europe.

Because Europe is growing into a superpower that is attractive, democratic, and predictable. A place where prosperity is shared and where the pursuit of happiness is a reality.

So friends—watch Europe. Watch it closely. Because it will play a very significant role in the geopolitical equation of the decades, perhaps the century, to come.

Thank you for your attention.