There is a stark contrast between US and European diplomatic processes – and attitudes. Europeans tend, on the whole, to be deliberate and measured in relationships with other polities, with certain exceptions (though even current relationships with Russia fall under this definition – just). Some may see this as slow and hesitant – which leads to the possibility that those with that perception may seek tactical or strategic advantage of what they see as weakness. American policy under the current administration, however, is just the opposite: swift-moving, though not always consistent, demanding and constantly seeking to exert additional pressure on the ‘other guys’’ decision-making loop. Some people see this as overly aggressive.
Nowhere is that difference in attitudes likely to be more obvious than at the World Economic Forum in Davos this week. Emboldened by recent ‘successes’ in Venezuela and a feeling – possibly illusory – that US policies are forging ahead worldwide against ineffectual opposition, Washington is now set on further reducing US involvement in NATO and reducing US military presence in Europe, according to DA sources along the Potomac. European leaders are likely (it is to be hoped) to push back against the Trump administration’s inflammatory rhetoric rather more assertively than has recently been the case, in our view.
Washington may well point to “successes” that include persuading NATO members to commit to ‘surge’ defence spending to 5% of GDP over the next ten years but conveniently ignore the fact that US spending in 2024 just scraped through 3.4% according to figures compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. They may also point to the “savings” achieved by withdrawing a brigade from Romania and summarily nullifying security aid programmes to the three Baltic republics. But Newton’s laws apply: to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, which in some cases may not be all that equal.
Nobody in their right minds will successfully make the case that NATO can maintain its current status and operational effectiveness without US involvement. Equally, nobody (with some vociferous notable exceptions) suggests that America is going to withdraw entirely from the alliance. But reducing engagement still further and empowering those who see the spectre of US isolationism approaching over a stormy horizon is a recipe for possibly unanticipated consequences.
Will European leaders suddenly grow several pairs, perform a volte-face in concert and busy themselves with foreign and collective security policies that minimize dependence on the United States? Probably not. But we should keep an objective and discerning eye on what happens in Davos this week. The seeds of reaction have already been sown: Davos may well provide an early spring shower to accelerate germination. In a demonstration that defence policies are intricately and intimately linked with the worlds of domestic, foreign and economic policies, Davos may well be seen as a turning point when the history of the 2020s comes to be written.
Aggression and assertiveness in diplomacy have their place. But an unremitting, nakedly ambitious and frankly narcissistic approach to the art does not. NATO disengagement, territorial aggrandizement and open contempt for allies with whom one’s nation has solemn agreements do not. It is worth pointing out – again – that NATO’s Article 5 has been implemented just once in the alliance’s history – at the request of the United States of America.
Watch this space.
Headline image: The Trump/Macron confrontation is just one of the personal interactions that may provide insight over the coming days. (RTL)
