EUROPE VS USA

“RIP the Trans-Atlantic Alliance, 1945-2018,” reads the title of James Traub’s latest article in Foreign Policy.

No matter how comic this epitaph sounds, it has much less humour than disappointment, which has visibly grown over the past year in Europe.

Relations between Europe and the US during the period indicated by Traub have never been trouble-free. Sometimes partnership and friendly relations have alternated with tense and explicitly hostile ones.

Communication difficulties

By making numerous efforts to restore Europe after the World War II, the US hoped to make it more compliant with its own aspirations for global primacy. However, post-war European leaders, especially Winston Churchill and General de Gaulle, were reluctant to kneel before the new-born elder brother.

In fact, it was the desire to safeguard own interests through common efforts in the bipolar world dominated by the US and the USSR that launched the process of European integration in 1946. In that year, Churchill urged the Europeans to forget about nationalistic passions and create “something like the United States of Europe”.

Since then, the European Union has tried on several names, while the successive US presidents have managed to spoil the relations with Europe to a degree, which was followed by desperate attempts to restore them: Truman – the Korean War, Johnson – the Suez Crisis, Kennedy – the Berlin Crisis, Reagan – the Cold War with the USSR...

The civil war in the Balkans seemed to have made the allies strong again but the Iraqi war of 2003 put an end to this alliance. It seriously undermined the unity of Europe, as Bush Jr. was supported by several countries of the continent, primarily the UK, despite the objections of the EU and multi-million protests against the war throughout Europe. Hence, Bush used his second presidential term to restore the spoiled relations with the EU.

According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, these failures greatly weakened both transatlantic partners by 2006: Europe was going through an internal crisis after a failure to adopt the common constitution, while the US had serious problems in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both sides soon realised that they could not do without each other, and settled down.

But this period of tranquillity did not last long. In 2013, a scandal around the audition of European embassies and the EU office in Washington, DC provoked a new crisis in relations. According to Edward Snowden, the bugs found in Washington were used to collect information about disagreements between the EU member states.

Certainly, not all the problems between the US and Europe had political background. They had many economic scandals too.

The economic blockade against Cuba, Iran and Libya launched in 1996 by the Clinton administration threatened companies, including the European ones, with sanctions if they did not stop cooperating with these countries.

In response, the European Union adopted a law that would block possible US sanctions, allow European companies to ignore American court decisions and compensate the incurred financial losses. As a result, President Clinton opted for a compromise.

In the following years though, the US attempted to introduce extraterritorial laws (in 2004 and 2010) that prohibited cooperation with Iran. Incidentally, not all European attempts to protect its rights were successful. In 2015, under the Obama administration, which was considered a close friend of Europe, the French bank BNP Paribas was fined a record $8.9 billion.

In 2008, the US nipped any European attempts to hold the American banks accountable for the international financial crisis in the bud. In other words, Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi (Latin: “What is permissible for Jove is not permissible for a bull.”). Quite a unique partnership indeed...

Partnership between Europe and the US is going through the deepest crisis in the entire post-war history.

It would seem that the American-European alliance should only become stronger considering the events in Ukraine, the Middle East and the growth of China, but the existing situation extends way beyond the likelihood of a complete disintegration of the alliance. Rather it may well turn into an open confrontation.

Various opinion polls conducted in European countries show that almost the entire population trusts Trump considerably less than his opponent, Vladimir Putin. For example, 82% of Germans are very concerned about the US policies, while only 53% of the population are not happy with the Russian president.

Six reasons for confrontation

1. In January 2017, before he could update himself on political and economic affairs of his own country, Donald Trump made an announcement to shut the NATO because the ungrateful Europeans did not want to compensate Americans for the protection of Europe. His initial binding condition urging the EU to increase its military spending by 2% of GDP in respective European countries has recently increased to 4%, albeit voiced in passing to study the reaction.

What was the response of Europe? It has accelerated the process of creating its own army. Last autumn, the EU announced the launch of the European defence program PESCO, possibly to channel the increased military spending to the development of its own military industry and infrastructure.

2. The US was the only country in the world that did not sign the Paris Accord, which regulates measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. In contrast to the decision of the Trump administration, many US states, major cities and companies have expressed their commitment to the ideas reflected in this international treaty.

3. Since 2017, the US has been trying to impede the reassignment of arbitration judges of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which will inevitably stall the organisation. In March 2018, Trump announced the introduction of 25% and 10% duties on steel and aluminium imports, respectively. He justified his decision with a need to improve “national security”, although the WTO rules concede such an excuse only in the event of global catastrophes, such as wars or natural disasters.

Certainly, the introduction of import duties affected the interests of European companies, and the EU responded by submitting to the WTO a list of €1.4b-worth American goods, which could be taxed by an additional 25%. The other countries of the world, whose interests were affected by the decision of the US administration, did the same. In fact, the US is destroying the established international norms of free trade by unleashing an economic war and challenging everyone to split the bill.

4. The US Department of State threatened to impose sanctions against companies and states participating in the construction of a new gas pipeline from Russia to Germany, Nord Stream-2. German Minister for Economy and Energy Peter Altmaier accused the US of using force in an attempt to sell American liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe.

“The US is our friend and partner, and we want to protect our common values. But if the US puts its own economic interests above ours, then Europe will identify its own interests and fight for them,” Altmaier said.

5. The decision of the Trump administration to move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and its opening on the 70^th anniversary of the establishment of the State of Israel further complicated the situation in the Middle East and led to numerous casualties among the protesting Palestinians. The overwhelming majority of the world countries strongly condemned these actions. Majority of the EU countries (24 out of 28) boycotted the opening ceremony of the US embassy.

6. On May 8, Trump announced the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal with Iran concluded between the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the United States, China, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom) and Germany in July 2015 after ten years of intense negotiations.

This step means the intensification of sanctions against Iran, including the legal entities and individuals of other countries interacting with Iran.

The EU asked Iran to remain committed to the terms of the deal and promised to fulfil all its obligations. Apparently, few people believe in this promise, including Europe itself, since large European companies such as Total, Wintershall, Maersk Tankers and Royal Dutch Shell have already stated that they would most likely be forced to stop their operations in Iran.

Even the promises of the EU leaders to update and enact the law of 1996, which entitles the European companies to defy American requirements, could not encourage the European business community. In fact, the American market is much more important for large multinational companies than Iran.

“The era in which we could fully rely on others is over to some extent. That’s what I experienced over the past several days. Therefore, we, Europeans, truly have to take our fate into our own hands,” said the main actor of European politics, German Chancellor Angela Merkel last May unambiguously hinting at the US president, who had his first meeting with European leaders at the G7 summit.

This happened a year ago. Still, Europeans do not know how to materialise this plan. They have little time left. The Trump administration, on the one hand, and the Iranian leadership, on the other hand, impose conditions, which sound no different from an ultimatum. Europe must make a decision on its own and do it as soon as possible. Then we will find out if Traub's joke was amusing.