The world looked on with some surprise as this quick and generally positive result came from a meeting with one of the highest defenders of the European Union, an institution whose existence is dismissed by the current US President. Toward the end of the meeting, the President then received an apparently obligatory kiss on the neck from “Jean-Claude.” All of these things, including the admittedly volatile results of the meeting, have left observers rather confused.
Boris Johnson, the former British Foreign Minister and a clear EU-opponent, described Trump’s approach quite accurately when he said: “He’d go in bloody hard. There’d be all sorts of breakdowns, there’d be all sorts of chaos, everyone would think he’d gone mad. But you might get somewhere.”
From the point of view of Europe’s political leaders, this volatile nature at a highly political level is hard to stomach. The same goes for China, where mutual trust is valued very highly. The American president is going down a dangerous path: Permanent surprises can also get old pretty quickly, which then runs the risk of not being taken seriously anymore. The agreement with Jean-Claude Juncker rests on pressure inside America, exerted by various senators and the agriculture industry, which is suffering from divested soybean exports that are now coming from China.
A senator from the state of Nebraska formulated it in this very clear way: “Our farmers want to be in business and don’t want to rely on subsidies.” In this way, he also expressed his rejection of the planned 12-billion-dollar subsidy program that the US administration has developed for the country’s farmers.
The majority of Trump’s supporters will probably forgive his escapades and volatility. But an American farmer also probably doesn’t want to suffer unexpected financial setbacks. Allowing the President to act out is currently part of the show business of American politics – I doubt that the majority of his voters know where North Korea is –, but it’s expected that he do this without personally inconveniencing his voters. The principle of “Checks and Balances,” the balancing of democratic institutions, is not really his thing. Due to his personal character, the President skews more autocratic. This is why he’s visibly more comfortable in dealing with autocrats than with people like Angela Merkel or Theresa May. On his trip to Poland this past July, Donald Trump spoke about the rule of law but not about the separation of power or the independence of the judiciary branch.
Europe United
The fundamental problem is not the USA’s supposed weakness (“Make America Great Again”) but its strength, both from an economic and military point of view. Trump is mercilessly playing with this strength, both toward Europe and China, who are partially dependent on exports to the USA. For the US President, respect isn’t an inherent value but is instead based on power and strength; weaknesses are exploited to his own advantage. What he doesn’t like are large organisation such as the EU or the World Trade Organisation (WTO), since they can actually disagree with him. However, some inefficiencies there do need to be addressed, which is why he prefers “deals” with individual countries who are more likely to conform to the “Boss”’ views. After all, how is a country like Poland or Hungary supposed to stand up to the USA by itself? When it comes to deals with Americans, the weaker one loses, as harsh as that may sound.
Therefore a unified trading goal of the EU should be to take advantage of inner-American weaknesses. That doesn’t sound nice, but it’s the result of the American administration’s powerbased politics. The United States must realise that their current policy will also lead to some unpleasant isolation for them.
The free trade agreement that the EU signed with Japan in mid-July (JEFTA) and the results of the 20th EU-China-Summit in Beijing show how quickly and comprehensively the EU has reacted to the changing political situation. During the signing ceremony in Tokyo, the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the EU president-in-office Donald Tusk, and the president of the commission Jean-Claude Juncker were all present. The agreement, which has been in the works since 2013, is meant to dismantle tariffs and other trade barriers in order to stimulate growth. Abe spoke of a “historical achievement.” Japan and the EU would be taking over the leadership as “standard bearers of free trade.” The goal is to ensure that the trade agreement goes into effect at the end of March of next year, which is when the British are expected to leave the EU. “This is a hopeful signal in a time that’s difficult for world trade,” said Joachim Lang, the managing director of the Federal Union for German Industries (BDI). In the relationship with China, where some trade issues have been stalling for years, progress is also being made. Over the past three years, there was a sign of agreement via a joint statement at the end of the summit which enforced the strategic partnership on both sides. The “EU and China are two powers of stability” said China’s prime minister Li Keqiang after the talks.
No Reliability
As a counterpoint, the expected trade agreement between the USA and Great Britain after Brexit will be interesting. In early summer, the Financial Times exclaimed: “The USA cannot be relied on anymore.” And of course we need to wait and see how the final agreement with the EU this November is going to look like.
The same goes for the military sector: Europe, and Germany in particular, is missing a strategy that doesn’t depend on the USA. In the past, this wasn’t necessary. But what happens when “the West” starts to break off? Will Germany defend Montenegro? This will probably need a renewed sense of “Realpolitik,” something Germany knows a thing or two about. Creating peace with more weapons? That is hard to imagine, but the US government – and this is a clear position – demands high returns for the use of its atomic protection shield. Security has a price. Do it yourself or pay for it.
The current allocation of an annual two percent of the GDP for military uses in only one point that needs to addressing. According to NATO, global military expenditures in 2017 reached the highest point since the end of the Cold War, with a total of 1.740 billion dollars (!) spent. Over 900 billion dollars were spent by NATO members alone. Russia’s behaviour in Crimea, in eastern Ukraine, and even in Syria are definitely not compatible with our politics, but Russia’s military spending – about 66.3 billion dollars in 2017 – is still less than the USA’s spending of 610 billion, even if we must take differences in the standards of living and in corresponding living prices into account.
Therefore it’s only fair to ask who is pressuring who right now.
About the Author:
Ferry Wittchen is a lawyer and accountant in the Stuttgart region, and advises especially mediumsized enterprises within the context of internationalisation.