At a conference in France, a number of Europeans surprised their American guests by arguing that US President Donald Trump might be good for Europe. With Trump returning to Europe for the G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, it is worth asking whether they are right.
By most accounts, Trump’s presidency has been terrible for Europe. He seems to disdain the EU. His relationship with German Chancellor Angela Merkel is cool in comparison to his friendship with authoritarian Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, or his admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Moreover, Trump welcomes Britain’s looming exit from the EU; upon meeting British Prime Minister Theresa May for the first time, he is alleged to have asked enthusiastically: “Who’s next?”
Finally, Trump only belatedly reaffirmed NATO’s Article 5 (which pledges mutual defense); he withdrew the US from the Paris climate agreement, which is very popular in Europe; and he has cut US funds for the UN, which has strong European support.
Not surprisingly, Trump is personally unpopular across Europe. A Pew poll showed that only 22 percent of Britons, 14 percent of French and 11 percent of Germans have confidence in him, but this very unpopularity — more anti-Trump than anti-US — has helped to reinforce European values.
Earlier this year, there was a fear that a rising tide of the type of nationalist populism that brought Trump to office and led to Brexit might be about to sweep Europe, even giving the far-right Marine Le Pen the French presidency. Instead, the populist wave seemed to have crested with Trump’s election. Since then, populists have been defeated in Austria and the Netherlands; the French elected Emmanuel Macron, a centrist newcomer; and May, the champion of a “hard” Brexit, lost her parliamentary majority in last month’s snap British general election.
Europe still confronts the slow growth, high unemployment and political disunity that have plagued it in the decade since the 2008 global financial crisis, but whoever wins the German election in September will be a moderate, not an extreme nationalist, and will understand the importance of working with Macron to restart the Franco-German engine of European progress.
The Brexit negotiations promise to be complex and contentious. For “soft Brexiteers,” who want to preserve Britain’s access to the European single market, the problem is that the Brexit vote mainly reflected concerns about immigration, not about the minutiae of the single market’s rules. Yet Europe refuses to allow goods and services to flow freely without free movement of people.
About 3 million Europeans live in Britain and 1 million Britons reside in Europe.
A possible compromise could be found by creating a new Euro-British entity, one that would guarantee the rights of both sides’ citizens, while allowing some limits on immigration, as well as on some goods. One could think of this entity in terms of concentric circles, with free movement characterizing the inner circle of the EU and constraints allowed in the outer circle.
Whether such compromises will be possible depends upon European flexibility. In the past, Europeans have talked about allowing “variable speeds” toward the implied goal of “ever closer union.” This federal goal would have to be replaced and a metaphor of different levels would have to replace that of different speeds.
Many European elites have already become more flexible regarding Europe’s future and have moved past the federalist goal to envision a European entity that is sui generis. They point out that three different levels of participation already exist in Europe — the customs union, the euro currency and the Schengen Agreement on the removal of internal borders. Defense could become a fourth.
In the past, European progress on cooperation in defense has been inhibited not only by concerns about sovereignty, but also by the security guarantee offered by the US. With Trump raising doubts about the reliability of the US, the security issue has moved to the foreground.
Efforts to build a common European defense system have begun, but the process is slow. Other than Britain, only the French have major expeditionary force capabilities, while Germany has been inhibited by history from doing more. Britain was always reluctant to do anything that might compete with NATO, but those attitudes are beginning to change.
Again, the image of concentric circles can help.
In the buildup to the Iraq war in the early 2000s, some argued that, in terms of security, Americans are from Mars, while Europeans are from Venus, but the world has changed and Europe now faces a series of external threats. Russia’s attacks on Georgia and Ukraine have reminded Europeans of the dangers they face from their large neighbor. Deterring Russia still requires a strong NATO.
However, another set of threats could come from violence in the Balkans. Some observers believe that civil war was only narrowly averted recently in Macedonia. A European peacekeeping force could make a major contribution to stability in the region.
A third set of threats to Europe originates in North Africa and the Middle East. Libya is in chaos and the source of dangerous Mediterranean voyages by migrants and one can also imagine the need to protect citizens or rescue hostages in the region. Here the French expeditionary capability, perhaps coupled with Britain’s, could provide security. Even if Britain does not participate, other nations could help, as Germany does in dealing with terrorism in Mali.
Europe is a long way from a common defense structure, but the need is growing and, ironically, the unpopular Trump might prove more of a help than a hindrance.
Joseph Nye, a former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US National Intelligence Council, is university professor at Harvard University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
China has long given assurances that it would not interfere in free access to the global commons. As one Ministry of Defense spokesperson put it in 2024, “the Chinese side always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight entitled to countries under international law.” Although these reassurances have always been disingenuous, China’s recent actions display a blatant disregard for these principles. Countries that care about civilian air safety should take note. In April, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) canceled a planned trip to Eswatini for the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s coronation and the 58th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic
RSS