SOPHISTRY WITH CONSEQUENCES

The trans-Atlantic relationship remains a cornerstone of the geopolitical order of the world, constantly being transformed and analysed. Obviously, NATO, also referred to as the American chair at the European table, is the framework of the complex EU-US relationship. However, this chair is clearly at the head of the table, providing a configuration that has long suited everyone.

Macron's failed appeal

Under the Trump administration, NATO's role and Washington's ties with Brussels have been severely tested. But now, with the start of the Russian-Ukrainian war, it seems there is an unprecedented consensus and determination among the members of the trans-Atlantic community. And then suddenly the French President Emmanuel Macron made a series of unexpected statements about the relations between Europe and the US: "To be an ally [of the United States] does not mean being its vassal." For many, it sounded like an attempt to follow a European policy independent of the US. In other words: trading with China is far more profitable than feuding with it. But is this really the case? Or Macron's words are nothing more than an attempt to hear the opinions of different sides?

President Macron visited China on April 5-7, where he met Chinese President Xi Jinping. On April 6, during his flight from Beijing to Guangzhou, Macron gave interviews to the American Politico and the French newspaper Les Echos. He said that Europe faces great risks because it is caught up in crises that are not European at all, and "this prevents the construction of European strategic autonomy". "The question we need to answer, as Europeans, is the following: Is it in our interest to accelerate [a crisis] on Taiwan? No. The worst thing would be to think that we Europeans must become followers on this topic and take our cue from the US agenda…," Macron admitted.

Apparently, this statement deeply shocked France's allies. For example, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner, who also heads the Liberal Party, called Macron's call for the European Union naive: "The idea of strategic autonomy for the European Union is, I am afraid, naive. Security on European soil without the strategic nuclear capabilities of the US is at least unthinkable."

The German defence minister said Macron's remarks were "unfortunate" and that "different views should not be shared" by the US and EU. At the same time, he believes the risk that Europe could become a US vassal never existed.

Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki suspected Macron of wanting to trade European goods on the Chinese market at a geopolitically exorbitant price. James J. Carafano, vice president of the Heritage Foundation, and Victoria Coates, senior fellow at Heritage's Thatcher Center for Freedom, wrote that the US could not care about European security more than the Europeans: "On a recent visit to Beijing, French President Emmanuel Macron declare that his country would not feel obligated to support the US in the event of Chinese invasion of Taiwan... These calculated remarks reveal a selfish and cynical perspective... So, to borrow Macron’s phrase from his remarks at the White House last December, we must be 'brothers in arms' on Ukraine, but America must go it alone with China." In fact, there were many American politicians who criticised Macron. Chairman of the House Select Committee on China, Mike Gallagher, said, "Macron's comments are troubling. They are disgraceful and too naive from a geopolitical point of view".

One against all or?

Macron has hardly expressed the position of the majority in the European Union. But admittedly his voice is not the only one out there. There is also a certain degree of scepticism about his statements voiced at serious analytical level. For example, on April 4, Jeremy Shapiro and Jana Puglierin of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) published an article on 4 April titled "How Russia’s war on Ukraine has transformed transatlantic relations". The main accusation against Washington is the EU becoming relatively less powerful than America – economically, technologically, and militarily — over the last decade.

In particular, experts note that the US has become even more powerful since the 2008 financial crisis. On the crudest GDP measure, the US has dramatically outgrown the EU and the United Kingdom combined over the last 15 years. By 2022, the US economy had grown to $25 trillion, whereas the EU and the UK together had only reached $19.8 trillion. America’s economy is now nearly one-third bigger. It is more than 50 per cent larger than the EU without the UK. And if you take just the EU without the UK, it's even 50% bigger. American technological dominance over Europe has also grown. The large US tech companies – the ‘big five’ of Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Apple, Meta (Facebook), and Microsoft – are now close to dominating the tech landscape in Europe as they do in the US.

The same situation is in military technology, where, again, American spending exceeds that of all EU member states combined. At the same time, the war in Ukraine has further highlighted the total dependence of Europeans on the US for their security. Apart from the Ukraine crisis, the EU suffered a sensitive blow from the UK, which preferred independence from Europe even at high cost. The consequences of Brexit will be felt for a long time to come - after all, the UK was the second largest economy and military power in the EU.

What are the consequences? Obviously, a lack of confidence in its own strength, ambitions and goals. That is, Brussels is still unable to clearly articulate a unified foreign policy line, especially when it is necessary to react quickly and strategically. Liana Ficks of the US Council on Foreign Relations believes that American leadership has been so comfortable and convenient for the Europeans that they have lost the motivation to develop something themselves.

Europe is so different

It would be wrong to compare the US and the EU from the very beginning, structurally. For Brussels, which would like to be equal to Washington, the problem is that Europe is heterogeneous. Despite the EU attempt to position itself as a single political, economic and diplomatic body, this is far from the case. There are strong countries, such as France and Germany, the two largest economies of the European Union, and there are relatively weak countries. There are countries with different values and different political history. Moreover, they are still bearing the burdens of their past. When they were part or parcel of different states, they were either enemies or friends.

Shapiro and Puglierin further mention that "the financial crisis divided north and south, the migration crisis and the war in Ukraine divided east and west". Within the EU, there is a strong group of pro-American supporters represented by Eastern European countries, which, figuratively speaking, compete with the Old Europe. European governments are above all accountable to their voters, and the common goals are not always the same as internal ones. For example, let's take the climate problem - the question of who, how and to what extent should bear the responsibility and costs has not been answered yet, and there is no clear plan for a green transition.

The same happens when Europe is periodically confronted with a flood of migrants. We remember well the battles within the EU over this and how countries were instantly divided and remembered their borders and national interests. And there is also the sore point of energy security, which has become even more acute with the war in Ukraine. But still the most pressing issue is national security. That's why Macron's statement sparked such fierce controversy.

That said, most experts on both sides of the Atlantic recognise that there is no alternative to strengthening relations, especially given the challenges currently facing the West. The only question is how to put this into practice. US experts suggest focusing on developing bilateral relations with Europe. Incidentally, China is trying to do the same, but it is seen as an attempt to split the united European front. Former US Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs John Bolton proposed further expansion of NATO by inviting countries capable of making a significant contribution to its budget to join the alliance. In particular, he called for Australia, Israel and Japan to join NATO.

Jeremy Shapiro and Jana Puglierin believe the Europeans can become a stronger and more independent part of the alliance by developing the ability to support Ukraine and acquire greater military capabilities.

That said, it seems that the main issue for the transatlantic community will be precisely the fight/rivalry/competition with China. This shifts the emphasis, because territorially the EU is far from the theatre of confrontation. The staff of the European Council on Foreign Relations notes that the confrontation will mainly be in the technological sphere, with economic issues merging with security issues.

Incidentally, shortly before the coronavirus pandemic, there was a very specific dispute between the Europeans and Americans over whether to allow Chinese equipment manufacturer Huawei into European 5G phone networks. In fact, this is about the new foundations of the future world order. Simply put, whoever controls faster Internet and everything based on it (literally everything) will become (?) the new world power.

What is the role of the transatlantic community and Europe in particular? There is no answer to this question yet. There are statements such as those made by Macron. Or, for example, a statement of European diplomatic chief Josep Borrell that he made just a few days after Macron. He said that the EU will build relations with other countries depending on their relations and positions on Russia and China. According to Borrell, the era of a "fragmented world, with two different ecosystems of technological development" is coming. "There are many people who do not want to take sides, but they have to take a stand on the war in Ukraine and on China's growing role in the world," Borrell said.

We will soon find out whether Macron's words have been well elaborated and whether we can now see the rough contours of a pan-European place in the transatlantic community.