By Valery Perry and Toby Vogel
The new US National Security Strategy is a troubling document, but at least provides total clarity into the way Donald Trump and his team think and intend to act. It should dispel any wishful thinking by European or other democratic governments that they can somehow ride out this challenge and hope that things will someday snap back to normal. Following months of “business as usual” after the first salvos in Munich and the berating of Zelenskyy in February, this complacency needs to be abandoned .
The strategy, which in large parts reads more as a manifesto, is not only a confirmation that the trans-Atlantic partnership and alliance is functionally over – including NATO’s Article 5 – but also sounds a clarion call to other reactionary, right-leaning thinkers and anti-democratic leaders that the US is embracing a foreign policy based on transactional self-dealing and the active undermining of democratic governments and open societies. It must be taken both literally and seriously.
From the perspective of Europe, a number of points have already raised alarms. This document is firmly closing the book on the notion that comprehensive security can be best ensured by providing support for functional, rights-based and rule of law-based democracies. However, while it is bad enough that venal transactionalism and swagger is replacing a values-based approach that has served the US quite well for over three quarters of a century, the one time that values (other than power and money) is raised in the strategy is within the context of Europe. This context is focused not on a vision of a democratic and mutually reinforcing alliance, but on pulling Europe itself further to the illiberal right (a la Orbán’s Hungary) on issues related to migration and economic development, but also presumably big tech and the climate. We see that the Great Replacement Theory, which was once relegated to the far-right margins of politics, is an active thought system for Trump and his coterie – as it is in reactionary circles in Europe. This will boost regressive and anti-democratic elites and stoke grassroots-level polarization. The US is now seeking to export, as a matter of policy, the same polarity and domestic political dysfunction that has brought it to this point. The paragraphs referencing Ukraine, alone and in the context of the broader document, have already been enthusiastically embraced by Moscow.
The references to the Monroe Doctrine and what they are branding the “Trump Corollary” are another sign of the US narrowing the full spectrum of its global engagement to focus on its hemisphere. This administration prefers the visions of centuries past over those of the 20th and the 21st, and is blind to the way that the 19th century paved the way for the tragedies of World War I and World War II which ushered in the world order now being aggressively deconstructed. It is worth remembering that the Monroe Doctrine was aimed at asserting that the US would not interfere in Europe’s affairs, and similarly Europe would not interfere in the affairs in the western hemisphere. Yet taken together with the jettisoning of values, it sends a signal that while the US intends to support its ideological allies in Europe, it expects Europe to stay out of the way.
This view of geopolitics raises the question of what other spheres would exist, and reinforces the sense that Trump and Co would like to pursue a modern “three-way Yalta” of the world with Russia and China.
China is viewed as both an adversary and serious competitor, and one can wonder whether Trump envisions some new form of containment within these new spheres of influence. Russia, perversely, is not even mentioned as a nuclear adversary, let alone a systemic or values rival. The vision for relations with the Middle East and Africa is a mix of values-free transactionalism with the potential for self-dealing among the well-connected elites; the final paragraph of the document on Africa refers to business opportunities and return on investment while noting extraction opportunities that are sure to raise concerns about a new form of colonial exploitation.
At no point in the 29 pages is popular agency mentioned at all; democratic accountability as an underpinning of security, prosperity, and dignity is relegated to the rubbish bin. Trump is attacking Europe precisely because it represents the values that he is actively discarding home and abroad; one can hear echoes of Putin’s invasion of westward-facing Ukraine.
As always, when playing this real-life version of Risk and drawing lines on the global game board a big question will be what Europe looks like without the US in its camp, and with a predatory Russia on its eastern flank. It is critical that Europe does not view this document either as something to be ignored, or as sketching out new rules of the game that it will figure out how to play.
Europe and other democratic allies – Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, South Korea, Taiwan and others (what could be termed “Europe Plus”) – will only be able to fight against these anti-democratic and frequently kleptocratic trends if they work together and offer a new vision for the democratic world. While EU enlargement continues to be a policy that has both energized and exasperated the continent, the fact that there are candidate countries that see the value of joining (Ukraine is fighting and dying for this right) shows that there are still citizens who recognize that their future would be better with this democratic orientation.
It is easy to turn fatalistic in the face of autocratic momentum; however, given the chance, people choose a life of opportunity and dignity over closed and repressive systems. Europe has an opportunity and an obligation to push back by recognizing its role in consolidating a democratic “Europe Plus” and immediately developing active strategies to counter the new threat that its erstwhile ally has become.