Strengthening Both Pillars of the Trans-Atlantic Alliance
Secretary of State Rubio in Europe
The defense of Europe must reflect a very simple observation that America cannot care more about defending Europe than Europeans care. Defense spending and capability are the relevant measure of caring. Is Europe willing to adjust to an era when threats to Europe are small enough to reduce the need for American military power in Europe in contrast to the need from 1917 to 1991? The threat to Europe is real. But after two world hot wars and a world cold war, the military threat to Europe is small enough that America can watch from afar with only a framework of power in Europe as an insurance policy. This is not abandoning Europe. This is partnering with Europe.
The fundamental issue this year [at the Munich Security Conference] is the shift in how the United States views its place in the world. In a way, this was a crisis meeting. It’s not that the world is facing catastrophe; it’s that the geopolitical system is profoundly changing, as U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in his speech, and that many see those changes as an American betrayal.
This is normal for human beings. …
Certainly, Trump has chosen to dramatically ramp up the tensions surrounding that change – perhaps unnecessarily. But the change is inevitable, and it is natural to feel denial, fear and anger at what appeared to be permanent truths passing into history.
Yes, the president is overly … enthusiastic … in framing and pushing the changes. For a reason. He wants changes right now rather than settle for a well-planned international conference and boring PowerPoint preparations as an alternative to doing something. Which reinforces long-held biases in Europe about the president. You’ll note Asia seems to be taking this more in stride without reinforcing the drama.1
The American Secretary of State Rubio could not be more clear that America is not walking away from Europe. America wants to be a partner with strong and confident European friends and allies:
For the United States and Europe, we belong together. America was founded 250 years ago, but the roots began here on this continent long before. The man who settled and built the nation of my birth arrived on our shores carrying the memories and the traditions and the Christian faith of their ancestors as a sacred inheritance, an unbreakable link between the old world and the new.
We are part of one civilization – Western civilization. We are bound to one another by the deepest bonds that nations could share, forged by centuries of shared history, Christian faith, culture, heritage, language, ancestry, and the sacrifices our forefathers made together for the common civilization to which we have fallen heir.
And so this is why we Americans may sometimes come off as a little direct and urgent in our counsel. This is why President Trump demands seriousness and reciprocity from our friends here in Europe. The reason why, my friends, is because we care deeply. We care deeply about your future and ours. And if at times we disagree, our disagreements come from our profound sense of concern about a Europe with which we are connected – not just economically, not just militarily. We are connected spiritually and we are connected culturally. We want Europe to be strong. We believe that Europe must survive, because the two great wars of the last century serve for us as history’s constant reminder that ultimately, our destiny is and will always be intertwined with yours, because we know – (applause) – because we know that the fate of Europe will never be irrelevant to our own.
This was in no way a Dear John letter from America to European friends and allies. Rubio plays the “good cop” to Trump’s “bad cop.” But the objective of both is the same.2
Consider, too, that it isn’t as if America is demanding Europeans commit to defending North America and reverse the flow of hard power assistance across the Atlantic. I mean, other than pushing for better NATO defenses in Greenland—which helps North America and Europe. And again, there’s the president’s, um … enthusiasm.
Back to the initial article, the change is in shifting how much each pole of the trans-Atlantic alliance does to protect Europe:
The European crisis appears to stem from the perception of a betrayal of the commitments to Europe’s defense. The reality is that the Europe of today isn’t what it was in 1945. Economically, the European Union’s collective gross domestic product is a bit larger than China’s. There is no economic reason that Europe cannot protect itself, especially in light of Russia’s recent setbacks. Moscow has failed in Ukraine and lost control of the South Caucasus and Central Asia, both of which were in the Soviet (and later, Russian) sphere of influence. This has resulted in a fundamentally different and much weaker geopolitical reality for Russia.
I’ve discussed that the post-Cold War world3—notwithstanding the loud War on Islamist Terror that took place in the period (and which continues)—should more properly be considered the Russian Decline Era that has given way to the Era of Great Power Competition no longer centered on Europe.
But Europe is still of vital importance to America, as the secretary of state expressed. This is not America abandoning NATO:
Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby on Thursday called for NATO to be based on “partnership rather than dependency” ahead of talks with the military alliance’s defense ministers in Brussels.
The new American national security strategy causes heartburn in Europe. But the European portion is no reason to worry that America is walking away from Europe:
A number of analysts have reserved their harshest reaction to the document based on the Europe section. From a European perspective it may seem like a “boy, that escalated quickly” moment. But in reality this section is more of an intervention by friends and family—for their own interest, too—who don’t want to see Europe hit rock bottom[.]
Yet as I observed after the quote from the security document that followed, “Ouch.” So I get the European angst. But America wants Europeans to be strong partners (quoting the NSS), as one of America’s priorities states:
Enabling Europe to stand on its own feet and operate as a group of aligned sovereign nations, including by taking primary responsibility for its own defense, without being dominated by any adversarial power[.]
Again, this is no indication that America is parting ways and wishing Europe well in their new life without us. Let’s read one last part from the national security document:
Europe remains strategically and culturally vital to the United States. Transatlantic trade remains one of the pillars of the global economy and of American prosperity. European sectors from manufacturing to technology to energy remain among the world’s most robust. Europe is home to cutting-edge scientific research and world-leading cultural institutions. Not only can we not afford to write Europe off—doing so would be self-defeating for what this strategy aims to achieve.
Rubio reinforced that. It may sound more reassuring from him—our chief diplomat—rather than from our secretary of war defense or the president himself—and let’s not forget the splash the vice president made in Europe last year. But the message is the same. America cares about and values Europe as both a security partner and as the mother countries of our political founding and of our nation today—which has attracted people from around the world in the past who value that heritage and want to prosper in it and defend it. As I wrote in my concluding thoughts about the Europe portion of the NSS:
America is not abandoning Europe. But because of the decline of Russia and the rise of China, Europe is no longer the main front in defense of the West. Even as it is understandably the main front for Europeans, for America it is now an economy-of-force front. I hope it means NATO continues and that America’s role in NATO continues. A sad fact of life is that the European Union has an interest in stoking fear of America abandoning Europe in order to get America out of Europe. Americans as much as Europeans must accept that an evolving American role in defense of Europe is not the same as no role—or no national security interest in defending Europe.
We will adjust to the new international reality. The trans-Atlantic security relationship will endure and be a stronger alliance in the president’s vision. Because common heritage4 and security interests are what keep us together.
It pains me to hear the president insult good allies. I understand allies being hurt by that and even getting angry. The insults are unfair. But I hope our allies understand that this is just business and not personal. I certainly get angry with France on a monthly basis—but still see France as an ally. How many times do you read something here or on the TDR mothership that starts with, “Well that’s boring”? The NATO alliance continues to function despite the harsh words of the president. That harshness is from his business negotiating style, his need to bolster the West in only one term of office, and the great need for a strong West in a world that is not in a post-history phase where the West is safe from threats—both externally and internally.
I was amused to hear an interviewer and analyst in Europe discuss whether Rubio’s speech highlighted a schism within the White House! Really? The friendlier tone dramatically changed their interpretation of what I hear as the same message. As the president noted about the speech at a meeting, “Marco does it with a velvet glove, but it's a kill.”
A placeholder name if ever there was one until we could properly define it. I think I have.
The common heritage from America’s perspective is not primarily ethnic or religious blood and soil ties, but in common ideals, as I’ve addressed before.