We are living in stirring and troubled times, with the post-World War II map of Europe and the world changing. First, Europe’s pre-eminent leader, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, drew her conclusions from her meetings with US President Donald Trump at a series of summit meetings to pronounce that the European Union could no longer entirely depend upon the United States and Britain, on the verge of leaving the EU, for its defence. Ms Merkel’s foreboding was proved days later by Mr Trump’s announcement that his country was withdrawing from the landmark Paris climate agreement. The US President had lectured North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) members to pay their full share of two per cent of gross domestic product to the organisation. These developments follow the seeming negation of the post-World War II order orchestrated, guided and largely funded by Washington. It has now been overtaken by Mr Trump’s “America First” credo, first leaving the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) put together by the Obama administration to take in Far East economies in particular by excluding China.
China quietly pocketed this American gift to launch its new Silk Road initiative and now, with President Trump withdrawing from the climate agreement, Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang took full advantage of it during his visit to Europe to claim a leadership role, together with Europe, in making the world safer from the ravages of global warming. The Chinese are the last people to look gift horses in the mouth. Judging by the confusion that reigns at the policymaking levels, with the state department short-changed in the projected budget, policy formulation is still in a process of trial and error. After his campaign abuse, China’s President Xi Jinping seems to have been given a free pass. But we have US defence secretary James Mattis warning Beijing of the dangers of repudiating international law to militarise outcrops in the South China Sea. How long can Europe survive these shockwaves coming from Washington? They have created a crisis mood in Europe, and Ms Merkel captured well by raising the existential question of the European Union’s security. It comes at a particularly difficult time for the EU because of Britain’s exit schedule, the defiance of EU norms by two member states, Poland and Hungary, and the need for greater cohesion inside the organisation.
One consequence of this soul-searching will be a changed relationship between the EU and Russia. Europe, although not short of jingoists, has a different view of Moscow, painted in lurid black colours in Washington. Significantly, Ms Merkel mentioned relations with Moscow in her look at the future. Yet the picture looks incomplete, with Mr Trump changing his positions and the extent of American withdrawal from Europe and the world unclear. At the very least, President Trump is suggesting that his relationship with the world is transactional, apart from ending the so-called Islamic State. Further, he believes that the world had taken America for a ride in the post-World War II world. These are strange ideas coming from Washington, which has exercised tremendous influence in Europe and the world in keeping the peace in a largely US-ordained world order. American failures and tragedies were largely self-inflicted such as its escalation of the Vietnam conflict, the foolish invasion of Iraq, its hands-off policy towards Libya except for using its air power, and taking over the troubled Soviet mantle in Afghanistan. These were of course decisions taken by Mr Trump’s predecessors.
The question the world is asking is: Where does it go from here? With Mr Trump in power for the next three and a half years — impeachment seems to be a remote possibility at present — will he learn on the job or continue to wreck the post-World War II order? To an extent, Mr Trump has been forced to change his opinions, as for instance on going back on his promise to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Second, he does not believe that Nato is obsolete, as he did during the campaign, insulting the organisation’s leaders instead for not paying their full dues.
American scholars suggest that this soul-searching is a cyclical event occurring once every 20 years and this introspective mood will pass, as have his predecessors’ litanies. The question this leaves unanswered is the harm that the Trump administration will inflict on the country and the world while it remains in power. The world will not stand still while President Trump conducts his unique experiments in governance. The primary responsibility falls on Europe and Ms Merkel in particular. But Ms Merkel has hurdles to cross, first in winning the forthcoming parliamentary election, then to devise a workable formula to bring wayward member states into line and begin the long process of forming a tight defence apparatus less dependent upon the US and Britain. In Europe, Britain is facing continuing problems of terrorism, with the next general election days away. But the UK has always been an odd man (or, more appropriately, woman). It has not been able to reconcile itself with its relatively modest pecking order in a new world after having been the great imperial power not so long ago. Now it is paying for its foolishness in turning its back on the EU. In a sense, it will now depend upon a sequence of events to set equations for the future. Ms Merkel has to win and, as luck would have it, she has a worthy collaborator in the new French President Emmanuel Macron to join forces with her for a more prosperous and safer European future. Americans, meanwhile, have their own future to think of. Americans by nature are not selfish people. Perhaps this idea was best symbolised by the concept of the Peace Corps in offering help everywhere in the world at the grassroots level, whatever other benefits it might or might not have brought.
