After Iran and the NATO summit

By Krišjānis Kariņš, former Prime Minister of Latvia, now Senior Advisor at KREAB Brussels

All is not lost. Although anxiety levels have been high in Europe during the five months since Trump’s second inauguration, and many investment decisions across Europe have certainly been put on pause, the seeming madness of Trump’s method is starting to exhibit a certain pattern. The cause of a lot of angst in Europe is that Trump has upended roughly 80 years of US values-based foreign policy and moved towards a transactional foreign policy based upon an unclear notion of “America first”, which leaves a lot open to interpretation. For Europe, this uncertainty of American goals has caused a noticeable amount of panic, given that during these past 80 years the US has been the guarantor of European security. As Russia continues its war of aggression in Ukraine well into its fourth year, the fear that the US is heading towards isolationism and turning its back on its long-term allies has felt very real for many Europeans, not to mention the Ukrainians in particular.

Events from the past week are shedding much more light on what Trump’s foreign policy actually is. For one, it has become clear that when Trump threatens during a negotiation, his threats are not to be considered empty words. The recent US military strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites prove this point. These strikes also upend the theory that Trump is leading the US towards isolationism. This is good news, since both Russia and China are forced to reconsider their assumptions about how the US under Trump is or is not willing to use its military power to intervene abroad. Indeed, Trump’s actions in Iran are perhaps a close polar opposite to those of former President Obama, who back in 2013 threatened Syria’s Assad with “red lines” concerning his use of chemical weapons, only to pull back the impending military strike. This US inaction is arguably one of the reasons for the long and drawn-out civil war in Syria and Russia’s expansion in the area, and also perhaps one of the reasons why Putin risked the illegal occupation and annexation of Crimea and the start of the war in Donbas a year later. Trump’s threats now take on a new and very real meaning.

Many politicians (and commentators) in Europe have been reacting strongly to Trump’s style and rhetoric. In this sense as well, he is close to a polar opposite of Obama, who was well-spoken, and seemingly considerate in his choice of words. Trump has not hesitated to berate his European friends and allies for their perceived unfair trade practices, lack of commitment to invest in their own defence, and their treatment of his political allies such as Hungary’s Orban. In turn, this has led many to believe that Trump is effectively abandoning them, since he no longer sounds like the “kind uncle” that many in Europe have come to expect from a US president. However, if emotion is kept at bay, the situation turns out not to be as dire as many feared.

The annual NATO summit in the Hague last week was an event that was apparently planned to please Trump and keep him engaged in Europe. If so, it was a success. The summit included lavish praise from many leaders, and a short and sweet program with a succinct 5-point declaration at the end. Many have commented on the fact that much of the visible praise for Trump tasted of sycophancy and showed just how little many Europeans actually think of themselves. While this is probably worth some consideration, it is a side show next to the real event. The most interesting aspect of the summit is the realisation that Trump’s aggressive threats to his allies over the past five months (and even longer) have actually worked. Since Obama, all US presidents (including Trump in his first term) have pleaded with their European allies to invest more in their own defence. Trump’s approach this time has been different. He even at one point publicly threatened to leave those allies who do not invest to the will of Putin.

The result is summed up in the “Hague Summit Declaration’s” five points which were agreed by all allies: (1) Article 5 (the all-for-one and one-for-all clause) remains “ironclad”, (2) allies commit 5%(!) of GDP spending on defence by 2035, (3) of the 5% spending, 3,5% will be on “core defence”, and the remaining 1,5% for critical infrastructure, etc.; support for Ukraine is also reaffirmed as part of allied defence spending, (4) a commitment to expand transatlantic defence industrial cooperation, and (5) thanks to the gracious host! If any doubts remain, Trump stated at the NATO summit that “we’re with them all the way.” For Russia’s Putin, this is a message that must be considered seriously, especially in light of US action in Iran. This is a vital part of “deterrence” that makes NATO so powerful.

Of course, if a timeframe broader than the actual summit is taken into consideration, then Trump’s stance becomes less clear. Just on the flight over he stated to the press that “It depends on your definition. There’s numerous definitions of Article 5. You know that, right?” By now no one should be surprised that Trump can publicly contradict himself in a short amount of time. This is apparently all part of how he operates: remaining ambiguous for as long as possible in order to attain that which he has set as a goal. In this case, the goal was getting Europeans to commit to investing in their defence.

At the end of the day, “America first” for NATO allies means that as long as Europeans invest into their own defence, they can count on Trump’s America to stand with them. The “blank cheque” aspect of the American security blanket is gone. However, this should not be mistaken for meaning that European security has become weak. Trump has effectively put the ball in the Europeans’ court. It is now up to Europe whether the US will continue to stand by them. If they invest as promised, the US will be there for them. If not … Ultimately, this is a very positive development, because it properly places responsibility for European security in European hands, and forces allies to fully pull their own weight. Indeed, it could be the case that a future US president will miss the days when the US provided for European security, and thus had a tremendous lever with which to influence their policy.

Trump is most likely still in the process of developing what “America first” means for foreign policy. Currently, it appears that “America” and “Trump” are quite interchangeable in this context. His presidency is shaping up to be one of the strongest in a very long time. The Republican party on the whole is standing firmly with their leader, who is amassing individual power on a scale not seen in the US in anyone’s living memory. The traditional “checks and balances” on power are weakening, given that congressional Republicans are not seriously challenging him in any way. He is also pushing the limits of presidential power vis-a-vis the courts.

The result of Trump’s battle against the perceived “deep state” is that he has fired or forced many policy experts into retirement. In turn, these experts have been largely replaced by political loyalists who are not beholden to past notions of “predictability” or “values” in foreign policy, but understand their role to be enabling the will of the executive. Thus, foreign policy in the US currently amounts to what the President says it is. This leaves the world in a somewhat more precarious position than it was before. However, for NATO and the Europeans, a clear path to maintaining security in Europe has now been mapped out.

If European leaders follow through on their pledges to invest in their own defence, Europe indeed will become a much stronger and safer continent. It could even end up as a considerable geopolitical player. As US foreign policy goes through its upheavals, it is the responsibility of Europe to “stay the course”. Putin’s aggression remains very real for Ukrainians and for the rest of Europe as well. This aggression can and needs to be deterred by overwhelming military power. For now, and most likely for the duration of the Trump presidency and beyond, the US remains a strong ally on the contingency that Europe follows through on its recent NATO pledges. Trump speaks loudly and carries a very big stick. Europe needs to invest in its own big stick. The stronger Europe becomes, the less dependent it will be on the will of America or as is currently the case, on the will of one man’s policy. Regardless of what one may think of the US president, Trump has essentially pushed Europe to finally get on the proper path to eventually be able to guarantee peace and stability on the continent. European security now really is up to the Europeans.