ألمانيا في عصر ترامب

Jan 26, 2017 Joschka Fischer

برلين ــ الآن أصبح دونالد ترامب الرئيس الخامس والأربعين للولايات المتحدة، وفي خطاب تنصيبه أوضح للمؤسسة الأميركية أن إدارته لا تعتزم مواصلة العمل كالمعتاد. ويشير شعاره "أميركا أولا" إلى التخلي عن ــ أو ربما تدمير ــ النظام الدولي بقيادة الولايات المتحدة الذي بناه وصانه الرؤساء الديمقراطيون والجمهوريون بدءا من فرانكلين ديلانو روزفلت ــ وإن كان ذلك بدرجات متفاوتة من النجاح ــ لأكثر من سبعين عاما.

إذا تخلت أميركا عن دورها بوصفها القوة الاقتصادية والعسكرية الرائدة وتحركت نحو النزعة القومية والانعزالية، فسوف تعجل بإعادة ترتيب النظام الدولي، في حين تعمل أيضا على تغيير الولايات المتحدة ذاتها. فبدلا من كونها قوة مهيمنة، سوف تتحول الولايات المتحدة إلى قوة واحدة كبرى بين قوى كبرى عديدة.

منذ نهاية الحرب العالمية الثانية، كانت الولايات المتحدة المحرك الذي يدفع التجارة الحرة العالمية إلى الأمام، وعلى هذا فإن أي تحرك نحو فرض تدابير الحماية أو محاولة عكس اتجاه العولمة أو تسخيرها لتحقيق مصالح وطنية ضيقة، من شأنه أن يخلف عواقب اقتصادية وسياسية هائلة في مختلف أنحاء العالم. الواقع أن الآثار الكاملة المترتبة على مثل هذا التحول لا يمكن التنبؤ بها إلى حد كبير؛ لكننا نعلم جميعا ــ أو ينبغي لنا أن نعلم ــ ماذا حدث آخر مرة عندما تحولت قوى رائدة عالمية إلى الداخل، في ثلاثينيات القرن العشرين.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

US President-elect Joe Biden may have promised a “return to normalcy,” but the truth is that there is no going back. The world is changing in fundamental ways, and the actions the world takes in the next few years will be critical to lay the groundwork for a sustainable, secure, and prosperous future.

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world’s foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

Head for the Bunkers?
Petras Malukas/Stringer

Head for the Bunkers?

Carl Bildt says Trump's presidency may not trigger Armageddon, but it is already creating perilous uncertainty.

12
How Trump Helps China
Laurent Gillieron/Stringer

How Trump Helps China

Daniel Silke argues that US isolationism will facilitate the growth of Chinese soft power worldwide.

4

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 23 in all 23 Comments on this article

Delia Ruhe Feb 19, 2017

It’s refreshing to read a European who actually notices that the Trump presidency offers Europe opportunities. That’s a contrast to all the handwringing and whining typical of the EU’s comfortable status as Washington’s vassal. Europeans should do themselves a big favour and grab that “chance finally to close ranks, grow up, and reinforce their geopolitical power and position.” Now, what’s needed from Fischer is a detailed description of what Europe’s “geopolitical power and position” consists in. To my mind he means Eurasia. After all, the US is building nothing — except maybe oil pipelines, pipelines being the only things (so far) Trump thinks of as infrastructure. By contrast, China and its Asian partners are involved in the biggest development project in the history of humankind. I really hope Europe soon gets over its handwringing and gets itself signed on to the real future.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
eusebio manuel Jan 31, 2017

I believe the vast majority of European citizens do not care about the emigration policies of Trump they want good trade relations with the world´s lasgest economies they probably hate the fact that europe is loaded with mosques Western Democracy needs watering and regulations Control emigration It´s bound to be controlled immigration does not mean dividing families It looks like we have to get used to it
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Jan 30, 2017

What Fischer calls "Europe" is really German oppression of the rest of Europe. Actually, is it just the corrupt alliance of identity politics left (Soros/Fisher) and the economic right (Soros/Schäuble) with Merkel combining both evils in one person.

When Germany declared that it would take an unlimited number of "refugees" (illegal economic migrants in real life), Germany violated several European agreements (notably the Dublin Regulation). Now Germany wants to impose its unilateral policy disaster on the rest of Europe. Not surprisingly the rest of Europe isn’t interested.

Germany under Merkel choose to attack the rest of Europe. Europe (and many Germans) are fighting back. No one in Europe should be subject to the EuroReich’s tyranny and oppression. Fischer’s vision of paradise is clearly a (German) jackboot stomping on the face humanity forever (while prattling on about “human rights”, Open Europe, “we can do it”, etc.)

What does the Fischer/Soros/Merkel EuroReich offer to the people of Europe? Sadly, we know the answer all too well. It is Bataclan, Charlie Hebdo, banlieues, tournantes, Cologne, Molenbeek, Rosengård, etc. forever. If anyone does to challenge the EuroReich/EuroElite they can expect a “hate” crimes trial in short order. Sadly, the EUSSR and the USSR are becoming ever more alike.

Of course, the evil of the EUSSR doesn’t end with Cologne and Bataclan. The Euro has brought devastation to much of Europe with no hope of recovery (or debt relief) as long Herr Merkel is in charge. Yet another (German) jackboot stomping on the face humanity forever.

There is a useful quote from Mikhail Gorbachev on this point.

“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”

The USSR was evil. The EUSSR is little better. Time for a change. Brexit will help to bring down the Euroreich.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Jan 28, 2017

Joschka Fischer says Trump's "America First" policy may usher in nationalism and isolationism in the US, taking a toll on its relationship with Japan and Germany, two of its staunchest allies since World War II. As both countries had been warmongers, they "have rejected all forms of the Machtstaat,or “power state,” and relied on America's "security umbrella" for defence. They operate under constitutions dictated by the US, imposing basic laws that sought to end their militaristic traditions for ever. But in recent decades the US has been encouraging them to expand their armed forces.
Although the US has in the past admonished its NATO allies for not spending enough on defence, a decade ago both Japan and Germany were moving towards developing military forces that ought to reflect their global economic clout, as they had become leading "trading countries." Shinzo Abe faced a new security challenge from North Korea that had shown its ability to launch a nuclear weapon. He began to seek an amendment of the country's pacifist constitutional that constrains Japan from developing its military forces. The author sees the danger of a nuclear arms race in the region, if Japan, abandoned by the US, would beef up its defence capabilities, escalating the conflict with China, that involves a territorial dispute in the East China Sea.
The author writes: "Unlike Japan, Germany cannot re-nationalize its security policy even in theory, because such a step would undermine the principle of collective defense in Europe and tear apart the continent." Yet in 2006 Angela Merkel endorsed a white paper approving an expansion of the role German forces play overseas. The document pointed to radical changes in the country’s security environment - terrorism and the threat of weapons of mass destruction. It outlined the importance of an effective military and defence policy - a stable Germany would have a positive impact on the security of the international community. While the government concluded that Germany needed to shake off some of its postwar reticence, public support for the policy was weak.
In both countries, pacifism has become a tradition, as their citizens have drawn lessons from World War II. In contrast to the US, they harbour deep scepticism towards the efficacy of military power in resolving conflicts. While Germany is embedded in multilateral alliances - the EU and NATO - and surrounded by peace-loving countries, Japan’s only defence against hostile neighbours is its bilateral alliance with the US.
During the Cold War, Germany was a force to be reckoned with. It could mobilise large numbers of troops quickly. Even a decade ago, Denmark and the Netherlands were urging Germany to expand its military budget. Despite its "financial and economic might" it is still reluctant to take the helm, fearing that militarism might come back to haunt the nation. Germany opts for persuading others to "boost their contributions to collective security within the EU and NATO."
Since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war, the EU has been confronting myriad crises. During Trump's campaign, he had repeatedly said he would ditch NATO, because many of its members are not paying their way. This prompted the EU to draft the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). which sets the framework for EU political and military structures and for military and civilian missions and operations.
The author points out that it is Germany’s "second fundamental interest" to maintain "global free trade." While commerce within Europe's single market is "supremely important," trade with the US is extremely "vital" as well. It would hurt Germany "if China and the US – its two most important non-EU export markets – enter into a trade war. Protectionism anywhere can have global repercussions." He hopes this could lead to a "rapprochement between China and Europe," pushing Europeans to "close ranks, grow up, and reinforce their geopolitical power and position." And if we "finally do come together, /we/ should avoid anti-Americanism," because Trump is not America. It all depends on the outcome of elections in France and Germany. We don't know how Trump fares in the coming months and what Vladimir Putin intends to do.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Jan 28, 2017

The German people have got a very important choice to make at the upcoming ballot box, To vote for complacency, selfishness and the destruction of the EU dream (to include self destruction) leading ultimately to WWIV (meaning the Status Quo) or To vote for wisdom, real solidarity with the EU family and real partnership, e.g a choice between penny pinshing or war and destruction. This could very well be the last chance that Germany and the German people will ever get to correct the mistakes of the past and to embark on a new and hopefully prosperous path for everyone.
- M M Jan 31, 2017
  
  Mrs Lavendel, the German people do not need any advice, they are more than capable of digesting the information at hand and at hopefully making the right decision. Having said that, the German establishment seems to have learned nothing from the events of the last 2 years, so may be your question, should be directed to them instead.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Vicky Lavendel Jan 31, 2017
  
  Mr MM, as a Germany-expert you can surely advice the German people which party they should vote for in the upcoming election. I am curious!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- M M Jan 30, 2017
  
  Peter, I was not recommending fiscal transferunderthe current system, it cannot be done. I was talking about funding the migrants, the figures coming out of Germany are scary and these are the official figures, the true figures could be much higher. So Germany has one of two choices, either to continue funding the migrants to keep the economy going or relocate jobs to the peripheries.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Peter Schneider Jan 30, 2017
  
  What are you still dreaming of? Don't you see how the so-called "EU" is driving us up one against another?
  Please rethink what it means when you are requesting large-scale fiscal transfers from an institution that you are not allowed to vote for. And then please reflect why you are not allowed to vote for that institution.
  This "EU dream" in reality has become a true nightmare.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Christine Constable Jan 27, 2017

Mr. Fischer, I think your article is a naked flag waving exercise on behalf of Germany, given that German policy in Europe is not necessarily supported by the new Trump Administration. The constant allusion to the "might" of Germany and the "mother hen" approach of Germany and "peaceful" reconciliation with former enemies ignores the real and present concerns most nations have of Germany's pretensions to "control" and "manage" the EU, bypassing the collegiate founding principles of the EU - and jumping to the Franco/German Axis which (these days) seems to be the primary governing power centre that highly influences the direction of the rest of Europe. A huge reason the UK decided to leave the EU because the UK could see that through the manipulation of Euro based economies Germany, as the chief "underwriter" has and will have a stranglehold effect on many of the nations in Europe to do what is in the best interests of Germany.

As for America "needlessly" destroying the Pax Americana it is rich indeed that a German should complain that the States is objecting to the subsidising of European Defence whilst those in Europe do not pay the 2% NATO commitment they were expected to contribute only the UK and ironically Greece has actually delivered on this commitment!

We are entering a new world, a world based on "reality" and "responsibility". Germany blusters about being a champion of "free trade" whilst working hard to limit the UKs ability to penetrate its markets, and whilst being unable to force the EU to see sense in signing up free trade agreements with growing economies. Germany is doing and has done very nicely thank you in hiding the powerful and expensive German mark in the downbeat and failing Euro, and certainly we in the UK understand why the Germans are so wedded to the Euro, not for the benefit of Europe but for the benefit of German exporters.

I think for Germany she has much more serious issues to concern herself than making a grab for more export business and getting others to pay for her defence bill, she needs to step up to the plate and accept that the way the EU is operating is completely unacceptable, and the point at which many Euro based economies will have to get their Budgets approved by Berlin, will be the moment the European Penny will drop in the minds of those countries who were under impression the EU was an association of equal nations. What they will find is that Germany will in fact be calling the shots and will meld Europe to suit its own needs - and those with any understanding of European history can see where all this is going, Merkels's unilateral decision to admit over a million potentially dangerous "asylum seekers" without consent from the free movement area of the EU demonstrated the disregard Germany has for its so called partners in Europe.

The US stands (potentially) against the rise of Germany (yet again) who, despite the carnage of the last century, still does not seem to understand that many of us are bored with the rhetoric of a powerful Germany, who (in the past) has used this power not for good but for domination. The USA will indeed become a powerful check against Germany's inflated view of itself, as we see Germany bite off more than it can chew with the disintegrating economies now inhabiting the Euro and the failure of the EU to keep the project on an upward trajectory, sadly for the EU (as proved by the IMF) every time a new nation is admitted to the EU (and Germany's sphere of influence) the EU's proportion of world trade dips further. If Germany is not very very careful it could end up bankrupting itself as its dreams of European domination come to nothing for yet a third time.

I would prefer to offer a different scenario to you Mr Fischer. I would suggest you would be safer as a country if you took the UK's Brexit vote as proof positive that the nature and shape of the EU is wrong and dysfunctional. Germany should do all it can to keep the UK on side with Europe and re-cast (or should we say "grow up") and accept that nation states are not dead, and that subsidiarity, had it been properly exercised in Europe would have stopped a good deal of the unhappiness most people feel around an EU micromanaged Europe.

Germany needs to eject a good number of failing economies from the Euro and build this currency (if it has to be like this) from apposition strength and not from weakness. The European hegemony won't come about through more and deeper Europe, because all of the problems and issues most people have with Europe will not be addressed. However, a different Europe, based on sovereign nations working closely together is the "grown up" way to preserve national interests, do not insult our intelligence by suggesting Germany is no longer interested in the nation state, Germany does what is good for Germany not what is good or Europe - let's be honest here! The EU needs to prevent wealth draining away to nations within the EU who are not taking responsibility for their economies, simply using the EU as a bail out mechanism with no downside.

The USA is telling Europe that it has to start taking responsibility for its own bills on a huge range of issues, and the UK is in agreement with that.

the UK has spent 40 years bankrolling the EU with very little to show for it, and by having the temerity to say we wish to leave this failing project after 40 years of investment was no easy decision - but we had to do it even if we have become persona non grata as a result. The UK has its own problems, which the EU is not interested to address, equally the USA has its own problems and it needs to address those. Europe needs to grow up and understand that there is no free lunch anymore (if there ever was one) and that all of the 27 remaining EU nations have to start paying the bills and not rely on draining the coffers of those who are doing the right thing.

In the end Europe DOES need to grow up and hopefully although Brexit was a huge hammer blow to the pretentions of France and Germany is was an honest and heartfelt decision by the British to say the EU is not working and the UK can no longer afford to fund failure. QUestion is does Germany really have the leadership skills to make Europe work for the whole of Europe or just for itself?
- Robert Coleman Jan 29, 2017
  
  I'll keep it simple. You've obviously eaten a bunch of sour grapes. Your reason given for the UK's decision to leave the EU may have been your reason for voting 'OUT', but it doesn't appear to have been on the mind of anyone else here. I've heard a lot of different reasons, none of which I find compelling for voting out, but yours is quite unique. Nonetheless, it does smack of a fervent dislike of others not British. So I guess in that sense, it isn't all that unique. Try counselling.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Vidvuds Beldavs Jan 29, 2017
  
  As an American who has returned to Latvia, the land of his birth after a career and lifetime in the U.S., I take strong exception to the view that the E.U. is a structure that primarily benefits Germany. E.U. institutions are remarkable and those in the U.K. that work with Horizon 2020 and other E.U. programmes see mainly negatives in BREXIT for the U.K.
  Those who have been refugees themselves can understand policies that attempt to respond to a global crisis. The crisis management was far from perfect, but it demonstrated that the E.U. remained true to its value even under extreme stress.
  Now that Trump has chosen to attempt to take the U.S. back to the late 1930s the E.U. must truly rise to the challenge to preserve the international system because the wealth of all states depends on it. Trump believing he has a mandate from the American people is in opposition to the postwar order that was created under U.S. leadership. But it is that postwar order that has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty in China, India, Africa, Latin America and elsewhere.
  Unlike the U.S., the E.U. can deal with Iran, with China, with Mexico and with Africa. The E.U. has the institutional capacity to do what the U.S. cannot because the E.U. is a union of sovereign states in which each state has a seat at the table.
  The E.U. is now the hope of the world and the leaders of the E.U need to fulfill their responsibilities accordingly.
  Germany will host the G20 Summit July 7-8. President Trump has declared no faith in such multilateral organizations, but they are vital to the stability of the international system. We can hope that President Trump chooses to fully participate in the Summit and to add his leadership to the urgent challenge to rebuild the stability of the international system already damaged by imprudent actions of his first week in office.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Jan Czaja Jan 27, 2017
  
  I agree with your comment for the most part. What Germany has failed to do in two World Wars, it has accomplished through hijacking the EU. Southern Europe is essentially a German colony and market for German goods. Eastern Europe is it's Mexico with its cheap labor and low-skill assembly plants.
  
  However, as I already commented on other article regarding EU, Germany will not grow up or change. The current system is designed to serve its interest so why would they change it. Trust me, the greater good of EU is definitely not an argument which will convince the Germans. Southern Europe needs to get out of this structure to escape the economic depression its in. Germany and other Northern Europe countries can/mostly will continue with euro. Either way, the current structure of EU is unsustainable in a long run. It will be interesting to see where France ends up, though.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jose araujo Jan 27, 2017

^ this was a reply to Petey comment
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jose araujo Jan 27, 2017

Agree for the most, only problem is that Germany still suffers from imperialistic illusion...egard

Regarding the US current positions, imagine the impact if Europe and other parts of the world start rejecting the American way of life....

Imagine if we all dump our facebook accounts, stop buying in Amazon and Ebay, stop using youtube, stop buying Apple products...

There are very few swtich costs in many of the valur created in the US and we only use them because of the American Goodwill, once you erode that...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jose araujo Jan 27, 2017

Ykes....Hope this doesn't reflect German people position...

Very belligerent state of mind. Its not only the defeated countries - Japan and Germany that have abdicated from military power, most of the countries did.

I think countries didn't abdicate military power because they trusted the US, they did it because first it’s a waste of money (being a small country you are going to be defeated either way), second because a generalized war would be very detrimental to all countries, both on the economy side and due to nuclear weapons.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Jan 27, 2017

Trump may be too busy with domestic opponents, and Mexico, China. If his vaguely neo-con staff is feeling nostalgic for the good old days of Bush, or if his pissing match with the domestic press damages his ratings with his followers, maybe we'll have some more fun adventures in the Middle East. That I suppose is a risk for Germany, since more refugees are a boost for nationalists. But there's nothing anyone outside the US can do about that so no point losing sleep over it.

With US disengaging from EU (and if we're lucky, slowing the pace of proxy pissing match vs Russia), Germans will be free to handle the problems of the EU, which are enough to more than enough for any world power in the next 4 years.

Finding a way to reach a compromise with populist politics including its all its various elements on the left and right, hopefully making a conscious and purposeful transition out of neoliberalism, rather than giving in to the xenophobic nationalist reflex. And, international negotiations with the creditor nations in the southern and eastern blocs of the EU on its own, as well as the UK of course.

Security won't be a problem. Nobody is going to be attacking Germany, or any NATO country. Even if the US suddenly left, which the US won't do anyway (ignore Trump's comments), Europeans are collectively more than adequately armed to defend themselves as is. Russia, the eternal bogeyman, has problems as well and has much more to gain from reintegration into trade with the west, and coming to a negotiated settlement with the gulf oil kingdoms, than by any conflict.

And Germans (as well as French!!) should know they will be too busy to try a reprise of Libya or anything like that. Allocating significant resources to the military is simply not a priority unless one is completely deluded about the source of the current crises.

If the US and China get into a trade war (again, something that could happen only by accident or due to bureaucratic dysfunction, but that is of course possible) - Germany (as well as Japan) are in the enviable position of being high tech exporters on whom both China and the US will rely on. For the US to re-industrialize, and for China to increase investment in its military, which is what would happen in that unlikely scenario. (for instance - if Trump's generals take his tweets too seriously and start shooting at those artificial islands, China will be accelerating their tech and aerospace development, building a dozen aircraft carriers in 2018, etc). But again- not realistic.

Focus on resolving the imbalances of the EU, with an eye on addressing human needs.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Christopher williams Jan 26, 2017

Most Americans, and many reasonable people in the world, would agree that USA has been over-generous in enabling Europe to be secure for seventy years at virtually no cost. This, plus an anti-immigrant attitude, has brought about a Trump presidency of withdrawal, which will cause Europe to have to pay up, either for US security or to build its own. It is fortunate that Putin is short of funds to cause too much trouble in Eastern Europe, at least for the time being.
What is going to be equally interesting is whether Germany takes on greater responsibility for involvement in the developing world, particularly Africa - and we are seeing the first signs of how this may be going to take place. The G20 presidency is bringing about a breadth of thinking, notably with projects such as the Marshall Plan with Africa, that offer hope of such a role being accepted. Which makes it even more critical that the upcoming European elections, particularly in Germany, do not extend the Brexit/ Trumpian withdrawal pattern. Hopefully the EU will recognize the need to take a broader view and responsibility on such matters - and that USA will get over the Trump philosophy quickly.
- Jose araujo Jan 27, 2017
  
  To be secure against what exactly?
  
  Get off your high horse, Us has been the major cause of belligerence in the world, not peace keeping.
  
  Any of the major countries in Europe can defend themselves (Nuclear weapons are enough) against a foreign invasion, and if memory serves me right, Western Europe has never been under any threat from the URSS
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Florian Strahberger Jan 26, 2017

From my point of view, the USA is much overvalued. If we assume, that Donald Trump will keep-on going into this direction of trade-war, it is very likely that the US lend-sell-and-buy economy will loose its most precious asset: the US-Dollar.
Without the USD, the USA is very much in the same situation like Greece would be without the Euro. Huge trade-deficits are a clear sign of a lack of competitiveness on a per capita basis - and it might all collapse like a sandcastle without being backed by the Dollar.
China, on the other hand, is much undervalued. If it comes to a trade-war, China will have no choice but to boost-up its own currency and inflate its middle-class to make itself independent from foreign consumption.
And now: where is the -realistic- problem for Germany? (No: it is not surrounded by enemies who have nothing else in their mind than going into war against a high-tech nation. I will not dwell deeper on this - the 1930s are long ago.)
For Germany -or to be more precise- for those who live and work in the area what is called Germany, it does not matter a lot WHO is buying the goods & services the people who live there are capable to produce.
The Trump-Effect is a hype, and therefore much overvalued. "The Age of Trump" - that is ridiculous.
... It is the Age of Digitalization, of Visualization, of global Interconnection of Delocalized Workforce & Global Staffing.
There are much greater challenges ahead than the effects of things being in Donald's area of control.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kenneth Wallenstein Jan 26, 2017

The sooner the Trump administration is humbled, the sooner they will govern according to conventional wisdom. The alt-right vision of America is of a fortress. They see areas of cooperation as vulnerabilities to be closed. They will gladly build a border wall, start trade wars, renege on treaties.

The alt-right thinks it knows more, but what it knows just ain't so.
- Jose araujo Jan 27, 2017
  
  Most stupid vision, but what can you expect from such small minded people...
  
  America cannot be great if it closes itself, actually that's the most dangerous position they can take. America power and importance far exceeds the capacity of the country, they can only survive in the global market.
  
  American status quo can only be maintained if the US keeps its importance in the world, once the rest of the world rejects American life style, products and values, its economy will suffer hard…
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
vivek iyer Jan 26, 2017

There have been several 'international re-orderings' since the end of the Second World War. All of them have involved a diminished role for Europe. That won't change under Trump. What will change is that European leaders will be punished immediately for any attempt to meddle in things which are none of their business. The European tail won't be able to wag the American dog.
Had Hilary been elected, Europe would have said 'ah! we can repeat the mistake we made over Libya. On that occasion Hilary rushed to our aid. No doubt, now she is President, she will be able to do even more than she did last time. We can create a thousand Vietnams for our wonderful ally!'

Europe has been living in cloud cuckoo land. It thought it could become a regional hegemon- on the back of American military might. It imagined the Turks would grovel for a chance to join the club and that Syria and Iraq and Egypt and Libya and everywhere else would just magically turn into grateful markets and 'soft power' clients. Nothing of the sort occurred. Germany is deporting Kosovans. It has learnt a lesson. Chancellors who have a geo-political vision or who subscribe to the nostrum of a 'world order' pursue disastrous policies. Germany needs to pipe small and concentrate on its mittelstand.
America will not 'become one great power among many' by telling stupid European politicians to shut up. Why? Europe does not matter. It brings little to the table. NATO was about encouraging Europeans to fight a defensive war. It didn't have an offensive doctrine.
Over the last twenty five years, NATO could have developed into an effective force projection platform. But the whole set up is too bureaucratic. There has to be rationalisation- merging of armed forces if not a full fledged European Army- and for that rationalisation to take place, America needs to step back.
What about the notion that America, by reason of Manifest Destiny, is the 'locomotive engine' of everything that's right and good? Joschka tells us 'we all know what happened when the world's leading powers turned inwards in the 1930's'. Is he mad? Germany was a leading power back then. Did it 'turn inwards' but the road was slippery so it ended up invading Poland ? What about Japan? Did it start doing origami with the map and thus accidentally invade China?
The US did not turn its back on Europe in the 1930's. It did so at the beginning of the Twenties and was all the better for it. What does Joschka think the Americans should have done? Invade and occupy Germany till it paid reparations and was completely demilitarized? Why does Joschka not simply come out and say that America should have colonised Germany? Anything less would have been ineffective in preventing German rearmament and the revival of the General Staff's policy of enriching the Fatherland by annexation and forced labour.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/pyls7cBar

Cookies and Privacy

ألمانيا في عصر ترامب

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Head for the Bunkers?

How Trump Helps China

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

ألمانيا في عصر ترامب

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification