The Earth’s continental plates broke apart and first began to shift hundreds of millions of years ago, but anyone visiting European capitals or following events in US President Donald Trump’s Washington can be forgiven for thinking that another tectonic divergence is under way.
Of course, transatlantic mistrust is not new. In the run-up to the 2003 Iraq War, then-US secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld sparked controversy by drawing a line between “old Europe” and “new Europe,” the latter comprising the ex-communist states that were more enthusiastic about following the US into war.
In the eyes of many Europeans, Rumsfeld’s goal was to sow division within Europe.
Now Europe must deal with another difficult American named Donald. The Trump administration has pursued an even more aggressive approach to Europe, deeming the EU a strategic competitor and raising doubts about the US’ long-term commitment to European security.
In keeping with the Trumpian worldview, the US now views Europe as a freeloader that has taken advantage of American largesse.
Demonstrating his tenuous grasp of US interests, Trump seems intent on weakening the forces of European integration. He also has tried to drive wedges between Europeans, and not just between “old” and “new,” among whom he has a number of cheerleaders.
For example, Trump makes no secret of his sympathy for the Brexiteers, even as they continue to discredit themselves in the eyes of most Europeans, and perhaps even among a majority in the UK, too.
Trump’s “America first” worldview makes no room for a partnership between the US and Europe, or for any allies who do not automatically throw their support behind US policies.
US Vice President Mike Pence made this all too clear at the Munich Security Conference in February, where he scolded Europeans for undermining US sanctions against Iran and rather resembled a teacher reciting a list of overdue assignments.
US paternalism toward Europe will not necessarily end with Trump. As has been seen, it reflects a longstanding attitude within the US national-security establishment, including among neoconservatives, many of whom have refused to work for Trump.
On issues ranging from the Balkans to the Russian threat against Ukraine, the prevailing US view is that Europeans are weak. Or, as a popular 2003 foreign-policy book put it: “Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus.”
To be sure, Europe also bears some of the blame for transatlantic tensions. When the EU began its expansion process about 20 years ago, Poland and other EU applicants complained to US diplomats about being told by European envoys to choose between the US and the EU, as if there were two different sets of values and interests.
Europeans’ supposedly more evolved views on climate change, the death penalty, the uses of soft power and many other issues were marshaled in support of a single European identity, with interests distinct from those of the US.
Of course, much has changed since then, and some Europeans have come to realize that they must do more to strengthen transatlanticism, not least by increasing their defense spending, streamlining EU decisionmaking processes and settling economic disputes. One major holdout is Germany, whose defense spending as a share of GDP remains well below the 2 percent target set by NATO.
However, an even more fundamental challenge for Europe is internal. Across a wide array of issues, Europe’s leaders need to do a better job of explaining to their constituents what the European project is really about.
To earlier generations, the answer was obvious: European integration is necessary to prevent another world war. While that was true 70 years ago, it is clear that the project’s raison d’etre needs to be updated to address European voters’ current concerns.
Europeans originally thought they were joining together in a civilizational undertaking, but with the deepening of the bloc’s structural integration and the inclusion of a unified Germany, many Europeans started to feel like they had been forced into the world’s most onerous bureaucracy.
As social and economic pressures from immigration have increased, more Europeans have begun to feel as though they have lost their national identities. Their minds are not likely to be changed by lectures about moral responsibility and the needs of the less fortunate.
Hence, for some member states — including some that have benefited tremendously from EU membership — the instinct now is to shut the door and roll out the barbed wire.
However, as any serious European leader knows, migrant and refugee crises — and immigration policy more generally — must be addressed comprehensively at the EU level, including with a robust foreign policy focused on addressing the root causes of the problem.
As Europeans grapple with fundamental issues of identity, bureaucracy and sovereignty, US policymakers, whatever their political pedigree, need to take a deep breath and reflect on the causes of the current transatlantic rift. Specifically, they should consider whether high-handed paternalism is really the best approach to a continent whose values and interests so overwhelmingly overlap with their own.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the rising threat to democracy — and even to civilization itself — demands that the US and Europe demonstrate more mutual respect and cooperation. There is no reason to expect anything to change under the current US administration, but all hands are needed on deck to prepare for a better future for transatlantic relations. It is time to push the continental plates back together.
Christopher Hill, a former US assistant secretary of state for East Asia, was chief US negotiator with North Korea from 2005 to 2009. He is a professor of the practice in diplomacy at the University of Denver.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers