EU-US Relations: The new Trump Isolationist Doctrine and Strategy requires a reevaluation of the EU foreign policy objectives

A wall around America, instead 
of one between Mexico and US

President Donald Trump declared a new national security strategy on Monday,December 18, stressing the "America first" message of his 2016 campaign and faulting previous U.S. leaders for failing to measure up to it and look out for the nation's citizens. Isolation

"Our leaders engaged in nation building abroad while they failed to build up and replenish our nation at home," he said, pointing to the economy's strong performance and predicting even better under his policies.

His security strategy envisions nations in constant competition, reverses Obama-era warnings on climate change and affirms that the United States will unilaterally defend its sovereignty, even if that means risking existing the agreements with other countries that have dominated the United States' foreign policy since the Cold War.

The strategy from the Republican president could sharply alter U.S. international relationships if fully implemented. It focuses on four main themes: protecting the homeland, promoting American prosperity, demonstrating peace through strength and advancing American influence in an ever-competitive world.

Trump's doctrine holds that nation-states are in perpetual competition and that the U.S. must fight on all fronts to protect and defend its sovereignty from friend and foe alike. While the administration often says that "America First" does not mean "America Alone," the national security strategy makes clear that the United States will stand up for itself even if that means acting unilaterally or alienating others on issues such as trade, climate change and immigration.

Despite the risk of potential isolation presented by Trump's strategy, its fundamentals are not a surprise. The strategy emphasizes that U.S. economic security is national security. And it stresses that the U.S. is interested only in relationships with other countries, including in alliances such as NATO, that are fair and reciprocal.

The strategy also details the threats of "rogue regimes," like North Korea. It says that China and Russia "challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity."

Despite international challenges, the document cites emerging opportunities to advance American interests in the Middle East. "Some of our partners are working together to reject radical ideologies and key leaders are calling for a rejection of Islamist extremism and violence," it says. "Encouraging political stability and sustainable prosperity would contribute to dampening the conditions that fuel sectarian grievances."

Note EU-Digest: Obviously the President of the USA can and must do what in his eyes he believes is good for America. As to the EU, what is good for America, necessarily does not have to be good for the EU. Consequently, as has been written many times, the EU must stop being the "lapdog" of America, given its importance as a world class economy, with a population of close to half a billion people, and establish its own independent foreign policy based on EU principles and  priorities, and include a review of its military objectives within this context.

As to the leaders of European Populists and Nationalist parties, like Geert Wilders, Jean Marie Lr Pen, Nigel Farage, and others, who apparently admire Trump's "America First Isolationist Doctrine",  we  recommend they pack their bags and request asylum in the US  from their idol Donald Trump.   

Read more: Trump unveils details of 'America First' security strategy

Europe’s new “Indispensable Nations”- by Joschka Fischer

After the shock of the United Kingdom’s Brexit referendum and Donald Trump’s election as President of the United States in 2016, this will be a decisive year for Europe. Upcoming parliamentary elections in France, Germany, the Netherlands, and possibly Italy will decide whether the European Union will hold together, or whether it will disintegrate under the neo-nationalist wave sweeping the West.

Meanwhile, the Brexit negotiations will begin in earnest, providing a glimpse of the future of the EU-UK relationship. And Trump’s inauguration on January 20 may someday be remembered as a watershed moment for Europe.

Judging by Trump’s past statements about Europe and its relationship with the US, the EU should be preparing for some profound shocks. The incoming US president, an exponent of the new nationalism, does not believe in European integration.

Here he has an ally in Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has long tried to destabilize the EU by supporting nationalist forces and movements in its member states. If the Trump administration supports or turns a blind eye to those efforts, the EU – sandwiched between Russian trolls and Breitbart News – will have to brace itself for challenging times indeed.

The consequences for the EU will be even more serious if, in addition to setting the US relationship with Russia on a new foundation, Trump continues to call into question America’s security guarantee for Europe. Such a move would be at the expense of NATO, which has institutionalized the US security umbrella for more than six decades. Europeans would suddenly find themselves standing alone against a Russia that has increasingly employed military means to challenge borders, such as in Ukraine, and to reassert its influence – or even hegemony – over Eastern Europe.

We will soon know what comes next for NATO, but much harm has already been done. Security guarantees are not just a matter of military hardware. The guarantor also must project a credible message that it is willing to defend its allies whenever necessary. Thus, such arrangements depend largely on psychology, and on a country’s trustworthiness vis-à-vis friends and foes alike. When that credibility is damaged, there is a growing risk of provocation – and, with it, the threat of escalation into larger crises, or even armed conflict.

Given this risk, the EU should now shore up what it has left with respect to NATO and focus on salvaging its own institutional, economic, and legal integration. But it should also look to its member states to provide a second security option.

The EU itself is based on soft power: it was not designed to guarantee European security, and it is not positioned in its current form to confront a hard-power challenge. This means that it will fall to its two largest and economically strongest countries, France and Germany, to bolster Europe’s defense. Other countries such as Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain, and Poland will also have a role to play, but France and Germany are indispensable.

Of course, living in continental Europe means having Russia as a neighbor, and neighborly relations, generally speaking, should be based on peace, cooperation, and mutual respect (especially when one’s neighbor is a nuclear power). But Europeans cannot harbor any illusions about Russia’s intent. The Kremlin approaches foreign policy as a zero-sum game, which means that it will always prioritize military strength and geopolitical power over cooperative security arrangements.

Russia does not view weakness or the lack of a threat from its neighbors as a basis for peace, but rather as an invitation to extend its own sphere of influence. So, power asymmetry in Eastern Europe will lead only to instability. If Europe wants a stable, enduring peace, it first must ensure that it is taken seriously, which is clearly not the case today. Europe can credibly strengthen its security only if France and Germany work together toward the same goal, which they will have an opportunity to do after their elections this year.

EU diplomats used to murmur off the record that Germany and France would never see eye to eye on military and financial issues, owing to their different histories and cultures. But if security conditions take a turn for the worse, that may no longer be the case. Indeed, reaching a compromise on both sides of the Rhine should not be so difficult: France undoubtedly has the experience to lead on defense; and the same goes for Germany on financial matters.

If pursuing this European security option prompts the US to renew its own security guarantee, so much the better. Meanwhile, the EU should also forge a post-Brexit cooperative strategic arrangement with the UK, whose geopolitical position and security interests will remain unchanged.The old EU developed into an economic power because it was protected beneath the US security umbrella. But without this guarantee, it can address its current geopolitical realities only by developing its own capacity to project political and military power. Six decades after the Treaty of Rome established the European Economic Community, history and current developments are pushing France and Germany to shape Europe’s future once again.

Syria: The Mother Of All US Humanitarian and Foreign Policy disasters

David T. Jones writes in the Epoch Times; "The proverbial “law of holes” states, “When you find yourself in one—stop digging.”

So far as Syria is concerned, we seem unwilling to learn this lesson.

And, brutal as is the reality, the West has lost the war in Syria. Whatever our kaleidoscope of objectives has been, ranging from removal of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad to support of “democratic” rebels to creation of an Aleppo ceasefire, we have failed.

There is no reason to believe al-Assad will cease military action in Syria until he has eliminated opposition—whether it be Daesh (aka ISIS/ISIL/IS) or assorted “rebel” groups of whatever political philosophy. As long as al-Assad has Russian, Iranian, and Hezbollah assistance, he will prevail.

Nor is Aleppo’s ongoing humanitarian disaster going to cause a twinge by those conducting it. The fighting has continued since July 2012; various estimates suggest 30,000 dead with several hundred thousand civilians and combatants remaining in the besieged portion of the city.

However, remembering Russian casualties during World War II, e.g., siege of Leningrad (900 days; one million civilians and 300,000 military died) or Stalingrad (1.1 million total casualties; 478,000 killed), Putin may well conclude Aleppo’s losses are inconsequential—and the Western whiners are trying to play a human rights card in a military reality poker game.

Indeed, Western leaders have misplayed their opportunities from the beginning. We apparently believed the Arab Spring, starting in 2010, which swept away creaky dictatorships in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, as well as forcing political change throughout the Middle East, would also evict al-Assad.

After all, al-Assad looks like a gawky ophthalmologist (his academic training) rather than presenting the visage of an iron-fisted dictator. Implicitly, we thought he would decamp with lovely wife, family, and uncounted fortune to comfortable retirement in some dictator-accepting/friendly country. But there was steel where we expected Jello; his Army stayed loyal, fought hard, and beat down various rebel groups. Al-Assad “channeled” his father who never caviled at massacring opponents.

Western leaders declined to put “boots on the ground”—removing al-Assad wasn’t initially believed to be worth body bags coming home—or even bomb his airfields and destroy his Air Force, his trump card in combating rebels. So fighting continued, and we lost the easy course of action. President Obama backed away from his personal “line in the sand” demanding al-Assad remove chemical weapons; then the Russians were able to arrange such a removal/elimination and, concurrently, seize a principal position in the struggle.

Consequently, Syrians have fled by millions. Statistics on the tragedy are politicized, but one estimate has 4.8 million refugees plus 6.6 million displaced within the country from a population of 17 million. Most refugees are in neighboring Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan.

But the exodus has also disoriented Europe, which in a misplaced burst of humanitarianism opened its doors to more than a million refugees."

 The proverbial “law of holes” states, “When you find yourself in one—stop digging.”

So far as Syria is concerned, we seem unwilling to learn this lesson.

And, brutal as is the reality, the West has lost the war in Syria. Whatever our kaleidoscope of objectives has been, ranging from removal of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad to support of “democratic” rebels to creation of an Aleppo ceasefire, we have failed.

There is no reason to believe al-Assad will cease military action in Syria until he has eliminated opposition—whether it be Daesh (aka ISIS/ISIL/IS) or assorted “rebel” groups of whatever political philosophy. As long as al-Assad has Russian, Iranian, and Hezbollah assistance, he will prevail.

Nor is Aleppo’s ongoing humanitarian disaster going to cause a twinge by those conducting it. The fighting has continued since July 2012; various estimates suggest 30,000 dead with several hundred thousand civilians and combatants remaining in the besieged portion of the city.

However, remembering Russian casualties during World War II, e.g., siege of Leningrad (900 days; one million civilians and 300,000 military died) or Stalingrad (1.1 million total casualties; 478,000 killed), Putin may well conclude Aleppo’s losses are inconsequential—and the Western whiners are trying to play a human rights card in a military reality poker game.

Aleppo - Syria

Indeed, Western leaders have misplayed their opportunities from the beginning. We apparently believed the Arab Spring, starting in 2010, which swept away creaky dictatorships in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, as well as forcing political change throughout the Middle East, would also evict al-Assad.

After all, al-Assad looks like a gawky ophthalmologist (his academic training) rather than presenting the visage of an iron-fisted dictator. Implicitly, we thought he would decamp with lovely wife, family, and uncounted fortune to comfortable retirement in some dictator-accepting/friendly country. But there was steel where we expected Jello; his Army stayed loyal, fought hard, and beat down various rebel groups. Al-Assad “channeled” his father who never caviled at massacring opponents.

Western leaders declined to put “boots on the ground”—removing al-Assad wasn’t initially believed to be worth body bags coming home—or even bomb his airfields and destroy his Air Force, his trump card in combating rebels. So fighting continued, and we lost the easy course of action. President Obama backed away from his personal “line in the sand” demanding al-Assad remove chemical weapons; then the Russians were able to arrange such a removal/elimination and, concurrently, seize a principal position in the struggle.

Consequently, Syrians have fled by millions. Statistics on the tragedy are politicized, but one estimate has 4.8 million refugees plus 6.6 million displaced within the country from a population of 17 million. Most refugees are in neighboring Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan.

But the exodus has also disoriented Europe, which in a misplaced burst of humanitarianism opened its doors to more than a million refugees. "

Bottom line: Syria has become the mother of all US failed humanitarian and foreign policy disasters.

The question that Europe must answer, rather sooner than later is, can it continue to blindly walk in "lockstep" with the US, when it comes to their totally failed Middle East policies, or develop its own independent and more constructive foreign policy objectives?

EU-Digest

US Presidential Elections: Full Transcript of Donald Trump Foreign Policy Speech

Donald Trump

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump delivered a speech from Youngstown, Ohio this afternoon, during which he discussed his plan for defeating ISIS.

During his remarks, Trump declared that the United States is at war with radical Islam and that any country that opposes ISIS should be considered an ally.

Trump also blamed the rise of ISIS on President Obama and on Hillary Clinton, saying that their policies allowed the terrorist organization to flourish. Finally, Trump expanded upon his controversial Muslim ban, proposing a suspension of visas to countries that he described as “exporters” of terrorism.

He also proposed an ideological test to ensure those entering the country adhere to certain principles.

Click on the link below for the full transcript of Donald Trump’s August 15th speech, via the campaign’s website.

READ: Full Transcript of Donald Trump Foreign Policy Speech | Heavy.com

USA: Obama’s Warren Buffett foreign policy - by Derel Chollet

In his August 1 column, “A US retreat that feeds on itself,” Fred Hiatt rehearsed many of the familiar critiques of US President Barack Obama’s foreign policy, suggesting that if only the United States had kept substantial troops in Iraq, put forces into post-Gaddafi Libya, bombed Syria after it used chemical weapons and focused a little less on “nation-building at home,” the US — and the world — would be better off.

The idea that the US has retreated defies reality. Today the US is more engaged, in more places and in more ways, than it was eight years ago. In fact, on the issues that matter most — how and where the country uses military force, how it approaches its enemies and works with its partners, and how it should conceive of its power and exert its leadership — Obama’s mark will be enduring and largely positive. Instead of allowing the consensus for the America’s global leadership to fray, the president has worked to strengthen and sustain it.

That’s because Obama plays a “long game.” The defining element of his global strategy is that it reflects the totality of US interests — foreign and domestic — to project leadership in an era of finite resources and seemingly infinite demands.

Obama’s fundamental challenge has been to implement such a strategy within a debate that has become overwhelmed by manufactured drama and the illusion of silver bullet, black-and-white solutions. For too many critics, the answer is almost always for the US to do more of something and show “strength” by acting “tough,” though usually what that something is remains very vague. And doing more of everything is not a strategy.

Think of it this way: Obama has been like a foreign policy version of Warren Buffett, a proudly pragmatic value investor less concerned with appearances and the whims of the moment, focused instead on making solid investments with an eye to long-term success. The foreign policy debate, on the other hand, tends to be dominated by policy day traders — or flashy real estate developers — whose incentives are the opposite: achieving quick results by making a big splash, getting rewarded with instant judgments and reacting to every blip in the market.

Of course, today’s geopolitical turbulence feels like more than the usual market ups and downs. It is understandable that when looking out at the world, Americans are frustrated, pessimistic and scared. But think back to 2008, with the US economy shedding as many as 500,000 jobs a month and on the cusp of a second Great Depression, the US military was stretched to the breaking point through fighting two wars, and many parts of the world associated the US with militarism, Guantanamo Bay and torture. The picture looks very different today.

History reminds us that the question is not whether the world presents challenges but rather how the US is positioned to deal with them. Considering the extent of today’s global disorder, it is tempting to succumb to a narrative of grievance and fear — sharpening the divisions between “us” and “them,” building walls longer and higher, and lashing out at enemies with force. Or to think it better that, to reduce exposure to such geopolitical risk, the US should divest from its alliances. Despite all the talk of “strength,” what these impulses reflect is a core lack of confidence.

We cannot submit to such pessimism. As Obama’s presidency nears its end, the state of the world is indeed tumultuous and ever changing, but we have good reason to be confident. The United States’ global position is sound.

The US has restored a sense of strategic solvency. Countries look to it for guidance, ideas, support and protection.

It is again admired and inspiring, not just for what it can do abroad but also for its economic vitality and strong society at home. Or as Buffett — who last Monday spoke at a rally in support of Hillary Clinton for president — recently declared in his more folksy way, “The babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history.”

When it comes to being in a position to solve problems and give people an opportunity to improve their lives, the US is far better off than it was a decade ago. The question is whether it will continue to make the choices necessary to stay that way.

Read more: Obama’s Warren Buffett foreign policy | GulfNews.com