Comments 20

Jak ve věku Trumpa ochránit Evropu

Nov 10, 2016 Guy Verhofstadt

BRUSEL – Před prezidentskými volbami ve Spojených státech se průzkumy mýlily stejně jako ve Spojeném království před referendem o brexitu. A tak jako v případě brexitu se stalo nemyslitelné: čerstvě zvoleným prezidentem USA je Donald Trump, což ukazuje, že nad internacionalismem zvítězily úzce národní ohledy. V souboji mezi otevřenými a uzavřenými společnostmi zřetelně vyhrávají ty druhé a liberální demokracie se rychle stávají odbojovým hnutím.

S Trumpem v Bílém domě budou USA posedlé samy sebou. Už teď lze s jistotou říct, že Transatlantické obchodní a investiční partnerství mezi USA a Evropskou unií je ztracený případ. Trump v úřadu prezidenta však Evropu negativně postihne nejen tímto způsobem. Ve hře je teď samotná územní celistvost EU.

Trump už dal nadmíru jasně najevo, že evropská bezpečnost mezi jeho zahraničněpolitické priority nepatří. Neuznává strategickou nezbytnost NATO a zájem o transatlantické vztahy prokázal jen tehdy, když dělal narážky na neuhrazené účty. Trumpovo působení v úřadu prezidenta vyvolá obrovský geopolitický posun: poprvé od roku 1941 se Evropa nemůže spolehnout na obranný deštník USA; Evropa osaměla.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To read this article from our archive, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles from our archive every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

Featured

MAD About Sino-American Trade

Sep 20, 2018 Minxin Pei
Good Politics, Bad Economics

Sep 20, 2018 Robert Skidelsky
Japan’s Successful Economic Model

Sep 20, 2018 Adair Turner
The Immorality of Boris Johnson and Donald Trump

Sep 18, 2018 Chris Patten
Fresh Momentum for the Balkans

Sep 20, 2018 Javier Solana

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

0 Comments on this paragraph, 20 in all 20 Comments on this article

FlyOnSilenceOwl FlyOnSilenceOwl Jan 15, 2018

It was already decided those spending before Trump in 2016 A European Defence Fund: €5.5 billion per year to boost Europe's defence capabilities Lol Real data from EU http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-1508_en.htm
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Gilbert Nov 27, 2016

Amusing to read between the lines of Verhofstadts article-essentially saying that if the EU nations really are going to spend 2% of GDP on defence then they don't need the USA, accepting that the EU has had a free ride until now.

Hopefully Brexit will mean a severing of Britain's commitments to the continent too-we have no quarrel with Russia.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Vielhaber Nov 27, 2016

On Russia: Its Black Sea Fleet HQ is at Sevastopol, Crimea. Anybody really thinks they give that away? To whom?
On Syria: As always, oil (here: gas and its pipelines) is the reason, US are the "intervention force". The rest is show, a deadly one.
On Trump: Congratulations! Next come Hofer and Beppe Grillo/Lega Nord next week, AfD in 2017!
On defending Europe: First thing would be to stop the Merkel/EU-enabled influx of illegal immigrants, mostly muslim males. This the enemy within (the immigrants, the EU, Merkel), probably the worst to fear.
On Putin: He is the only one at this moment defending western (he is orthodox christian) values in Syria, instead of effectively subsidizing ISIS as does Turkey and the US via its close allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
On Verhofstadt: Favorable on TTIP. No more questions.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop Nov 15, 2016

I just got the figures on NATO defence spending in % of GDP ( Gross Domestic Spending ). The US 3.61, The UK, Greece, Poland and Estonia spent on or above the NATO guideline of 2 % , All other NATO members spent below the guideline, such as France 1.78, Germany 1.19, Italy 1.11, Belgium 0.85 and Luxemburg 0.44.
Belgium houses the NATO headquarters and Luxemburg ( home of mr. Junckers ) has become the wealthiest EU country by receiving the highest EU subsidies.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
leland adkins Nov 14, 2016

Good Article...four stars ****
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Nov 14, 2016

Europe has more people and a bigger economy than the U.S. Europe can defend itself. The time has come for America to focus on the American people. If Europe doesn't want to defend itself, then Europe should just accept rule from Moscow (or Beijing). NATO was created to deal with the problems of a different world. That world is gone.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Allan Bleiken Nov 14, 2016

UNFORTUNATELY TRUE
My first reaction to this article was another bleating heart article from liberal Europe. However, as I read more, the article correctly identified Europe's capitulation to the United States in terms of defence and foreign policy.

The EU is bigger than the US and is fully capable of looking after its own interests without riding on the coat tails of America. As for the NORTH ATLANTIC Treaty Organization (NATO), what is it doing in Libya, Afghanistan, and Syria? When the Soviet Union the Warsaw Pact collapsed in 1991, the need for NATO was greatly diminished. Instead however, under US pressure, it began a rapid expansion program to control and intimidate Russia.

Europeans should be ashamed of themselves. It is time to stand on their own feet and to contribute towards global peace instead of globe war.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Lintner Nov 13, 2016

Europe needs, first and foremost, start protecting its borders and not letting a single person in illegally.
- Henk Crop Nov 14, 2016
  
  Peter Lindner
  Indeed, if the EU wishes to strenghen their defense it should be on Europe's southern border. Not by cutting in the NATO involment but by adding a border patrol. A border patrol that stops immigration. The EU seems to be totally unaware of the real threaths. That is the population explosions in Africa and the Middle East, mainly in moslim countries. Population in Africa alone will grow by 700 million in the coming 35 years. That means more poverty, conflicts and immigrants.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop Nov 13, 2016

The NATO has served the US and Europe well over many decades.
As I understand it mr. Trump is dissatisfied with the burden sharing of NATO. Some EU member states do not even meet the aggreed upon targets. Also the US carries the major share of the burden.
So what is to be done is that parties meet and agree upon a fair sharing of the burden.
I do not see any reason why NATO should be split up and an EU army must be formed.
Working together in NATO is to the benefit of both the US and Europe.
The author says that the EU has forfeited control of its security, trade and migrant flows because of NATO.
Speaking about security and migrant flows, it is the EU rather than the NATO who is failing.
By not stopping the unlimited and random flow of immigrants it is the EU that is failing in one of her primairy responsibilities.
By the EU I mean the political correct dreamers in EU Brussels, Berlin and Rome. Who based on outdated laws and weak measures avoid their responsiblities. They do not protect their own citizen and mislead the potential immigrants. The latter by maintaing an image in the world that once you cross the Medittereanan you will land in paradise.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Nov 12, 2016

Guy Verhofstadt says Trump's election serves the EU as a wake-up call, and it must now "build its own European Defense Community and develop its own security strategy." During his election campaign Trump had said Europe should foot its own security bill, without relying on America's "defense umbrella." Now the author sees the urgency to deepen cooperation among member states, because the US may not be here to protect us.
In fact Federica Mogherini, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy had in June called for some countries in the EU to combine their defense capabilities, making Europe less dependent on America. A provision in the Lisbon Treaty will allow a security integration among a restricted group of nations, rather than requiring all member countries to sign up. Participation is voluntary, inclusive and remains open, with a joint EU military headquarters, more cooperation with NATO, and a more cross-border military planning. The plan has strong backing in Central Europe, where the Czechs and Hungarians have called for an EU army. Since Trump's election the Franco-German initiative launched in September is now on the priority list. France, Germany, Italy and Spain want to advance their cooperation on defense because of concerns that Trump will not recognise NATO’s "strategic necessity," and America's "interest in transatlantic relations."
Even if an EU army is still a distant prospect, the bloc seeks to gain greater strategic autonomy from the US and the ability to take on missions outside NATO's sphere of responsibility. The author says, "Europe has been only too happy to make life easy for itself," as history shows that the transatlantic relations "have adhered to a perverse, unspoken dynamic." On America's interventions in Iraq, Syria and Libya, Europeans have had different views, that are cause of friction. In February 2014, US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland's disparaging remarks - "Fuck the EU" - amid the crisis in Ukraine, still resonates in the author's ears. Besides defense officials have also doubts about the durability of US involvement in Europe, given the continent's proximity to Russia and the Middle East.
The author says "Trump knows that the EU has the money, technology, and know-how to be a global power equal to the US, and it is not his problem that Europe lacks the political will to harness its full potential. We Europeans have assumed for too long that it is cheaper and safer to let the US solve our problems, even in our own backyard." But in March Obama had already called on Europe to get its act together and provide for its own security, before Trump did. During his election campaign, Trump went further and threatened not to maintain U.S. commitments to NATO if elected, saying he would seek assurances that other NATO nations bear their share of the costs.
Now it's time to wake up, and the EU "can no longer wait to build its own European Defense Community and develop its own security strategy," which starts with "streamlining and expanding bilateral and regional relations, not least among and between the Baltic and Scandinavian countries, as well as between Belgium and the Netherlands, and Germany and France. All of these disparate relations must be united under a single European command, with common funding and a shared defense-procurement system."
The question is whether voters in various EU countries would approve of their governments' budget, in light of stalling economies and stagnant growth. The author says we in Europe have to make a "difficult but vital decision that the EU has postponed for too long. Now that Trump has been elected, it can wait no longer." The problem is that for many Europeans their daily bread and butter are more important than security. They don't believe in the threat posed by Putin.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Olsen Nov 12, 2016

There has to be some realism here. You cannot have the 3% deficit rule, German backed austerity throughout Europe and still expect to be able to finance an EU army.

If the EU wants to be able to protect it's borders it must allow the fiscal stimulus to enable growth and the increased tax revenues that increased economic activity that growth brings.

If Trump cuts the finance for Europe's defence, good. It will bring a bit of clarity to the confused thinking of the Euro elite.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Nov 12, 2016

Trump was elected to liberate the American people from the nightmare world of the cosmopolitan elite. The cosmopolitan elite has been both infinitely greedy and unbearably smug for decades. The people of the UK and now the USA have revolted against their oppressors. The gated-community crowd have trashed the lives of ordinary people without mercy. Now the unprotected are rejecting the unfounded arrogance of the protected. It is called Democracy. For years, the elite has been able to shutdown all debate on trade, immigration, failed multiculturalism, Open Borders, PC by just shouting "racism", "sexism", "bigotry", etc. Of course, PC has always been a tool for elite exploitation of the people. This year, the people stopped listening
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
vivek iyer Nov 12, 2016

The expansion of NATO meant that US forces are relocating closer to Russia. However their new hosts are not happy with Merkel and her allies to the West. One solution is for the richer Western European countries to pay their Eastern neighbors to defend the continent and seal the borders against migrants. Naturally, their own armies won't like this and so, in the short run, a European Defense force sounds a good thing. Will it be any good at fighting? No. It has no incentive to be. Iraq and Afghanistan have told their own story.
Trump's election hasn't changed anything in this respect.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
William Wallace Nov 11, 2016

No kidding! You would be very hard pressed to find, today, any American, regardless of level of education, who can make an argument for democracy from first principles. I've yet to find one - and I've been looking! - who can make a cogent statement without reliance on simply repeating what founding documents state. This owes mostly to the fact that the US never, in its entire history, fully embraced true universal adult suffrage, as it never embraced the equality expressed in what is now clearly a rant sheet, the Declaration of Independence. Seems the entire sorry enterprise has always been about enshrining white male supremacy. Let's dump this misleading and dangerous partner and build a better Europe, now free of the confusion these charlatans have provided.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Christine Constable Nov 10, 2016

I thought for a moment the author was going to continue in the usual vein of hand outstretched to the US to pay for the very expensive costs of expanding the EU and was somewhat relieved to see that Mr. Verhofstadt observed what the US has claimed for many years, that it is having to bear the larger burden of European security than Europe itself. I think we can also say that Germany (for all the historical reasons we are all well aware of) has managed to exit any demands for military investment, while countries such as the UK have strained to keep to the 2% target most other Europeans have ignored. Germany has indeed become wealthy by putting their energies into manufacturing investment and also taking part of the cake from Britain in military equipment sales due to the EU wide competitive tendering which has seen UK manufacturing wither, as Germany's have grown. Germany wants to be the big player in Europe, it seems also to want its cake and eat it (sound familiar?) Britain has disproportionately stepped in in any number of conflicts (some also in Europe) putting our people on the line and certainly a lot of our assets, whilst others in the EU have been content to sit back and do very little, and then blame the UK when things don't end up how they might have been planned. (wasn't us... it was the warlike British!)

We are now living in the real world. The US like Britain are not in a position to keep bailing out countries who would rather spend what cash they have in beautifying their city squares or propping up failing state sponsored industries Subsidy dependent Europe, scared of competition and union power are now finding the cold hard blast of reality uncomfortable. There is a price for internationalism Mr. Verhofstadt, it comes with a massive bill for military defence; cyber security; international competition; and as the British have also found out a huge welfare dependency from people who arrive on our shores with no education; no home; no ability to feed themselves or their families and expect the State into which they have never paid anything to support them as well as the ever present menace of terrorism.

It is all well and good talking constantly about globalisation and internationalism, but the EU epitomises an organisation who is largely closed to the international world, so criticism levelled at the USA for wanting to sort out its own problems first before it worries about others seems mean minded - most politicians (if they were doing their job correctly) would be looking after their own citizens first, not spending billions on foreign aid when their own are homeless or sick, or their debts are unsustainable.

In the end, the EU cannot be the UN of the world. Countries like Africa; India; and China have to deal with their own population issues; corruption and economic failure and not inflict their problems on Europe. The Europeans have managed to reduce their populations to manageable levels, it is the largely poorer; uneducated and economically unsustainable countries that are placing intolerable burdens on the developed world. Brexit and Trump ARE NOT manifestations of fascism or "populism" as the elites love to characterise them. The truth is clear for even the most dim politician to understand.

The reaction in western countries in rejecting the failing political classes to continue to rule unchallenged is simply because they are not fit for the job. They have largely grown comfortable on their guaranteed salaries; gold plated pensions, and the security of knowing they can rarely be sacked because the "gene pool" of the political classes is so small they will either come back in recycled fashion, like Sarkozy (scandal after scandal) or Clinton (scandal after scandal) or they will get a cushy little consultancy in one of the Merchant Banks they allowed to fleece their Treasury... when they were pulling the levers of power. Few politicians have ever lived in the real world and do all they can to insulate themselves from it. The people who are getting the ear of the people are characters like Farage who has actually held down a job outside politics; and Trump a Businessman. Larger than life but believable, which is more than can be said for people like Tusk; Junker and Schultz.

The story is pretty uniform across the peace.

Meanwhile, hard working, high tax paying families see their salaries diminish over time, and costs like housing sky rocket, because people like Mr. Verhofstadt believes his "internationalism" should take the shape of allowing millions of legal and illegal migrants to pitch up in every European country and continue to live as if they are still on the plains of Ethiopia, or the middle east, putting out the welcome mat that basically says come to Europe we are "tolerant" "welcoming" and "generous" (no matter how your values/religion/behaviour clashes with ours) without asking the very people whose house is being invaded, nor examining whether in fact the values/beliefs/ways of life are in fact compatible with the European people.

I can only conclude that the elites inhabit such a rarified atmosphere they never see the horrible mess multiculturalism has brought to Europe. No one cares about ethnicity; but culture is another issue - multiculturalism or cultural apartheid simply does not work all it does is create ghetto communities like those around Paris, or those in the UK in Birmingham; Leicester; Bradford and London, where for decades people living in these communities never cross paths with mainstream society. Religious and ethnic differences which embed disadvantage and hatreds, because basic failings of the open door immigration policy foisted on Europe by the EU simply failed to engage the populus with the concept of mass inward migration, this was without consent.

It is this sort of ignorant failed logic which has resulted in Brexit and Trump - apparently we are intolerant and racist if we don't sacrifice our own children for the children of migrants - that sort of argument is rejected on a massive scale. Charity begins at home. The US will be looking after the US, and Britain will be looking after Britain and Europe (such as it is) will also have to look after itself and not rely on the billions in hand outs it has become fat and dozy expecting. We are now in a world where no one is owed a living, we all have to work, we all have to pay and the sooner Europe also smells the coffee and starts to pay its way the better for all of us. Then the impossible bills and ambitions of the EU will become apparent - then the elites in Brussels will also have to wake up when it becomes too expensive to be a member of the EU as Eire has found out and as others will find out when the UK leaves and the cost of our departure has to be spread around. Sadly the EU doesn't have the calibre of politicians who could re imagine the EU into a functioning effective association of sovereign nations with strong economies and trading links because the EU to be effective needs to be less to be more successful, less controlling, less autocratic, less inflexible, less political and less vindictive - if it could master that then it may have a future.
- Vidvuds Beldavs Nov 11, 2016
  
  As an American living in Europe I am less critical of the EU, which is a work in progress with much less history than the U.S.
  The E.U. is a remarkable achievement. Like all social constructs it has many defects, but it also has processes to fix them.
  When the Berlin Wall came down some still feared the rise of a military Germany. I suspect that the U.S. was willing to bear a greater burden safeguarding the security of Europe to prevent the possible emergence of a greater danger.
  Trump indeed is a wakeup call for Europe. Europe has demonstrated the capacity to focus the strengths of over 28 sovereign states. With an economy $3 trillion more than the U.S. and with more than 200 million people more than live in the U.S. Europe can do much more.
  The E.U. has made climate change an overarching policy goal. Under President Obama the E.U. had an able partner whose active role engaged China, India and others. Now Europe will have to lead together with China and India because among the issues where Trump seems to have been consistent is the denial of the need to address climate change. We can look forward to turmoil in the U.S. on this matter because at least half of the population is very concerned about the issue.
  Syria is in Europe's neighborhood. It is far from the U.S. Europe is heavily involved in Syria with several member states active in the anti-ISIS coalition and the EU playing a major role in refugee resettlement and humanitarian relief. But, with U.S. leadership ISIS is being defeated in Syria. We can expect Raqqa to be freed, possibly even by the time Trump is inaugurated. The opposition forces, Kurds, and the coalition members providing air support will then have a direct role in determining the future of Syria. The E.U. can take a lead on this process.
  Where E.U. leadership can be most significant to promote international cooperate in a non-controversial area is space. The space agencies of the world have cooperated well in space exploration. The E.U. can provide leadership in an area where the U.S. has declined to lead and that is in lunar exploration leading to lunar industrial and commercial development. Jan Woerner, DG of the European Space has proposed a Moon Village as a successor to the International Space Station. Moon Village is a flexible concept that has room in the village for space agencies, research and private industry.
  The EU invests a fraction of what the U.S. invests in space. If it invested proportionately to the U.S. with its overall GDP the EU and member states together would need to triple space investment. Such investment could create jobs across the E.U. and open significant new opportunities for research.
  With the coming era of much greater opportunity for the private sector the E.U. with ESA needs to lead the exploration and industrial and commercial development of the Moon. This would strengthen the E.U. by providing a magnificent goal and an E.U. wide initiative with benefits to all member states. Only the E.U. is equipped to provide such leadership. By U.S. law NASA cannot engage with China in joint projects. But the E.U with ESA can engage with all countries. ESA has significant cooperation underway in space with Russia and with China and with the U.S.
  The E.U. with ESA can provide leadership in lunar exploration and lunar industrial development that is not possible for the U.S. Few other realms present such an opportunity to the E.U.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
dan baur Nov 10, 2016

The EU bureaucracy is doomed. Better scale down to something realistic and renounce Socialism to survive.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alisdair Hamilton-Wilkes Nov 10, 2016

Dream on Euro-dreamer.
Every time a pan-European defence project, for example Tornado and Typhoon fighter jets and countless common development and procurement programmes for helicopters, ground vehicles etc are incepted it always results in an ungentlemanly squabble over whose’ design will be used, who gets to build what (workshare); certain nations habitually drop out in support of their domestic industries (national champions) and the result is always an over politicised and under whelming, costly mess.

I admire the ambition and even hope it could happen but I won’t be holding my breath.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
shanmugham anand Nov 10, 2016

Remember what Jacques Poos declared? "This is the hour of Europe.........."
Come on Europe! Wake up before it becomes too late.
Either Europe will have to face the infamous nightmare for the French - an U.S-Russia Condominium or an unchecked Russia trying to extend its sphere of influence westwards.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/NHpWn9p/cs;

Jak ve věku Trumpa ochránit Evropu

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Featured

MAD About Sino-American Trade

Good Politics, Bad Economics

Japan’s Successful Economic Model

The Immorality of Boris Johnson and Donald Trump

Fresh Momentum for the Balkans

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Handpicked to read next

Europe, Alone in Trump’s World

Fresh Momentum for the Balkans

The Left Will Decide Poland’s Future

Japan’s Successful Economic Model

Good Politics, Bad Economics

Trump’s Currency Confusion Continues

MAD About Sino-American Trade

Emerging Markets’ Shifting Bottom Line

Hurricanes at the Ballot Box

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register