"The EU and the U.S. often work together to develop international standards. This is the case in fighting terrorism and transnational crime, advancing trade liberalization, and combating piracy and intellectual property violations"
About this Quote
Power here doesn’t look like tanks or treaties; it looks like standards. John Bruton’s line is a quietly assertive description of how the EU and the U.S. project influence in the post-Cold War world: by writing the rulebook and encouraging everyone else to play along. Framed as cooperation, it’s also a claim of jurisdiction. “International standards” sounds neutral, technocratic, almost boring, which is exactly why it works. It launders geopolitics through procedure.
The intent is diplomatic reassurance. Bruton, an Irish politician who later served as the EU’s ambassador to Washington, is selling the relationship as pragmatic and mutually beneficial, not ideological or domineering. The examples he chooses do double duty. “Fighting terrorism and transnational crime” evokes shared vulnerability and urgency, a moral high ground that makes harmonization feel necessary rather than elective. “Advancing trade liberalization” nods to the economic payoff and to the transatlantic project of lowering friction for capital and goods. Then he adds “piracy and intellectual property violations,” a tell: behind the language of fairness sits a concrete agenda to protect Western corporate assets and export enforcement norms to markets that may prefer cheaper access or looser regimes.
The subtext is that sovereignty is increasingly exercised through coordination. The EU and U.S. don’t merely respond to global problems; they define what counts as the problem (terror, piracy) and what counts as the solution (standardized enforcement, liberalized trade). It’s soft power with hard edges: once standards harden into law, compliance stops being a choice and starts being the price of admission.
The intent is diplomatic reassurance. Bruton, an Irish politician who later served as the EU’s ambassador to Washington, is selling the relationship as pragmatic and mutually beneficial, not ideological or domineering. The examples he chooses do double duty. “Fighting terrorism and transnational crime” evokes shared vulnerability and urgency, a moral high ground that makes harmonization feel necessary rather than elective. “Advancing trade liberalization” nods to the economic payoff and to the transatlantic project of lowering friction for capital and goods. Then he adds “piracy and intellectual property violations,” a tell: behind the language of fairness sits a concrete agenda to protect Western corporate assets and export enforcement norms to markets that may prefer cheaper access or looser regimes.
The subtext is that sovereignty is increasingly exercised through coordination. The EU and U.S. don’t merely respond to global problems; they define what counts as the problem (terror, piracy) and what counts as the solution (standardized enforcement, liberalized trade). It’s soft power with hard edges: once standards harden into law, compliance stops being a choice and starts being the price of admission.
Quote Details
| Topic | Justice |
|---|
More Quotes by John
Add to List
