Beneath the strained bonhomie of the G7 summit lurks a visceral fear: that US President Joe Biden’s bid to build a democratic alliance to stem the authoritarian tide led by China and Russia would split the world in two, leaving Europe, betrayed by Prime Boris Johnson’s turncoat Britain, to play piggy-in-the-middle.
Despite public applause for Biden’s key message — that the US is “back” after the xenophobic hypernationalism of former US president Donald Trump — European leaders seem far from convinced. They worry the EU might be sucked into a second, limitless cold war, and that Biden, who will be 82 in 2024, could be unseated by a hawkish Trump or Trump clone.
The message to Europe in Johnson’s fawning weekend embrace of Biden and the US, symbolized by a reworked Atlantic Charter and much Cornish corniness, was clear. Like a whipped bulldog craving favor, Brexit Britain would be Washington’s obedient, needy pet. Johnson is no Winston Churchill — but like Churchill in 1941, he is desperate for US backing.
Illustration: Mountain People
Biden will strive to hold the transatlantic alliance together, which for him means all the European democracies, including the UK. However, the Johnson government’s anti-EU trajectory, seen in the latest row with Brussels over Northern Ireland, threatens his vision.
Last week’s forceful pre-
emptive intervention by senior US officials suggests that London would eventually be forced to compromise, if only because Johnson dare not jeopardize the wider US relationship. Yet UK-EU antagonism looks set to deepen. Biden will have to tighten the leash again in future.
Europe’s concerns about strategic isolation as a newly divisive, bipolar world order takes shape are well founded. To its east lies China, Russia and like-minded regimes in India, Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia — autocratic, aggressive and contemptuous of Western-defined international norms.
To its west lies the US, a damaged power, divided against itself, whose political stability and consistency can no longer be depended upon. Biden’s efforts to restore normalcy to international relations are assured of European support for as long as he lasts, as this week’s EU-US and NATO “reunion” summits demonstrate.
However, if Trump or his followers regain power, a permanent US rupture with Europe and its liberal, multilateralist principles might become unavoidable. This in turn could wreck the EU if, say, copycat populists in Poland or Hungary were to definitively break with Brussels. For his part, Johnson would be happy to see Trump return and the EU split asunder.
Fears about Europe’s future in a hostile world are reflected in a comprehensive new survey of EU states by the European Council on Foreign Relations. It reveals what its authors call “a widespread lack of confidence in the US ability to come back as leader of the West.” Most Europeans believe the US’ political system is broken.
This disillusionment is not wholly due to Trump.
“More than a year after the start of the [COVID-19] pandemic, the feeling has taken root among Europeans that they cannot rely on the US, Russia or China, and that they must move towards greater self-reliance,” the survey said.
Europe would be squeezed like an unripe lemon between rival global forces that share neither its values nor its interests
In short, Europeans do not trust anyone any more. Instead, majorities believe Europe should develop unified responses to global threats. They prefer pragmatic partnerships to permanent alliances. Many want the EU to be a “beacon of democracy and human rights,” and a great power capable of defending itself.
At a time when the EU faces an extraordinary 21st-century agenda — the climate crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, economic recovery, migration, digitization, cyberthreats and right-wing populism — such ambition should, in theory, be welcome.
And yet Europe’s politicians and bureaucrats seem unprepared. While the public wants the EU to do more, confidence is low that it will — not least due to its COVID-19 missteps.
“Disappointment with EU institutions has now come out of the periphery and gone mainstream,” the European council said.
This reflects a broader problem: a dearth of effective national leaders. Few are committed to building the independent, self-sufficient Europe voters want. Solidarity is lacking when it comes to standing up to China over Xinjiang and Hong Kong, to Russia over Ukraine, Belarus and Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny, or to the US over Israel-Palestine and trade.
In Germany, to which many Europeans look for leadership that never quite arrives, German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s imminent departure has created a sort of funk. Despite talk of a Green revolution, voters seem likely to opt (as usual) for the safe, inward-looking, center-right choice — namely Armin Laschet, Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union successor.
In Paris, French President Emmanuel Macron, who has no illusions about Johnson or US altruism, regularly calls for a fiscally, economically and militarily integrated Europe. Yet his eloquence has not helped him at home, where he was quite literally slapped down last week. In any event, he is increasingly distracted by a tough re-election battle next year.
In Italy, the rise and rise of far-right parties, such as the Brothers of Italy, feeding off immigration fears, inspires ultranationalists, xenophobes and bigots everywhere. Brothers leader Giorgia Meloni’s ideas about identity and globalist conspiracies make her a natural ally of Trump, not of Biden or Brussels.
Meanwhile, those who look for strong EU leadership look in vain. If the union were a true democracy, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen would have been voted out over her vaccine fiasco. However, the EU does not work that way, which is part of the problem.
For EU leaders, the G7 perpetuated a fantasy of power and purpose. Unless they urgently take ownership of its destiny, Europe would be squeezed like an unripe lemon between rival global forces that share neither its values nor its interests.
Europe’s choice: be a standup player on the world stage — or risk becoming a quirky cultural museum for Chinese tourists, and the butt of Trump’s and Johnson’s jokes.
As the incursions by China into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone intensify, the international community’s anxiety has risen over the question of whether the US military would become directly involved in the case of an attack on Taiwan. Washington’s long-held policy of “strategic ambiguity” does little to ease the trepidation. The rationale universally espoused on “strategic ambiguity” is that an announced commitment from Washington to directly defend Taiwan would encourage Taiwanese independence and consequently bring forth a Chinese military attack and a possible nuclear confrontation between two superpowers. However, this line of argument could soon lose steam if the subject is viewed from
Having deceived the world about its nuclear capabilities while preparing for an arms race, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is now using its increasing nuclear forces for virtual nuclear coercion. This new threat will continue until the United States, Japan, and Taiwan can restore the CCP’s sense of fear. This dynamic is a familiar one for Taiwan. As the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) capabilities have grown, its inhibitions about conducting larger and more frequent coercive military demonstrations have shrunk. The PLA now more openly practices for the destruction of Taiwan’s democracy and the murder of its citizens. In the nuclear realm,
In an unprecedented move, a group of democratic nations led by the US, UK and EU in a joint statement on Tuesday accused the Chinese Ministry of State Security of having carried out a major cyberattack earlier this year and stealing data from at least 30,000 organizations worldwide, including governments, universities and firms in key industries. Western officials were reportedly perplexed by the attack’s brazen execution and unparalleled scale. In an article on the attack, BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera wrote: “Western spies are still struggling to understand why Chinese behavior has changed.” The attack raises the fear “that they [China]
At the conclusion of the G7 Leaders’ Summit on June 13, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who participated virtually, called for the reform of multilateral institutions as the best signal of commitment to the cause of open societies. His comments are significant in light of China’s ongoing and successful efforts to control international organizations, and, in particular, to keep Taiwan out of critical health agencies amid the COVID-19 pandemic. China’s influence over the WHO is well known. It has used this control to deny Taiwan a place at the World Health Assembly (WHA), the decisionmaking body of the WHO. Taiwan’s absence