World Politics Getting Rough This Summer

The world as we see it today it is not a sheet of glass resembling the sea on which commodities together with ideas sail along without a hitch. It is rather an unpredictable stormy ocean that does not have mercy on anyone and does not give anyone a break.

July is the last month of the political season ahead of the summer break. This year it was quite stormy though. The European theater that is still traditionally central for international stability evinced special emotions. The key events in this respect were the European tour of US President Donald Trump that culminated in his meeting with Vladimir Putin which took place in Helsinki and the completion of the trade war between the European Union and the US, which had not started, ten days later. Indicatively, the US President respectfully observed the Russian leader and demonstrated his desire to work on the restoration of relations, whereas he literally gave orders to the Europeans. The media created a very effective backdrop for the NATO Summit. The threats to question US participation in the Alliance were heeded and apparently the Europeans promised to work on increasing their military spending. They did it more than once but never since the Cold War have they faced such consistent pressure from Washington that is bound to continue without a question.

The reason is a fundamental change in the international context, and most importantly, America’s self-concept. Until recently America pursued a fairly carefree foreign policy based on the confidence in its absolute supremacy and dominance. The American leaders did not see any competitors. The entire narrative of US foreign policy amounted to a myth about unconditional US leadership. Recent developments have shown that this myth is questionable. The economic power and, most importantly, the international influence of China are growing. One can assume that the US is unable to protect its own domestic political system from foreign influence although the latter’s scale is much smaller than the US media actually portray.

All this requires serious actions when it comes to relations with any solid partners. It is impossible to restore global supremacy by simply getting rid of yet another dictator with smart bombs. Something more serious needs to be undertaken. The first demonstrative action as regards Europe lasted for the whole of last year. At the beginning of summer 2017 German Chancellor Angela Merkel said emotionally after her first major encounter with the new US President that hence forth Europe has to rely on itself. It looks like when it comes to this that it is not really doing very well.

EUROPE: COUNTDOWN TO THE POINT? Timofei Bordachev
How the Old World’s political system evolved and whether it will give birth to a new one

Europe’s surrender to its overseas patron that was agreed upon in Washington at the end of the month by President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker has largely completed a regular cycle in trans-Atlantic relations. A little over 20 years ago a fellow student on my course from a prestigious European university and now a prominent Austrian diplomat answered the question why Europeans were going to abandon their national currencies in favor of the Euro. His answer surprised me. He said that the common currency will be stronger than the US dollar. In the middle of the 1990s such ambitions seemed to go without saying. After the collapse of the USSR and the establishment of control over Eastern Europe’s Soviet satellites by the West Europeans, it seemed that in the new world Europe can play the role as an independent power center and what’s more might even become a kind of superpower. It was not necessary to create a military capability with that of the US. It was enough to have the economy and the political influence supported by soft power. i.e. the appeal and dissemination of the European legal norms and standards.

The Euro went on to become an international currency and many EU members are still under its influence. But has it really produced an effect as regards the global influence and, most important of all, the ability to uphold the interests of the Europeans in relations with its strongest partners? It is abundantly clear that the answer is “no.” And the fatal mistake made between 2013 and 2014 when the EU got involved in the conflict with Russia over Ukraine drove it into a deadlock. The European states have apparently quarreled with Russia for a long time and thereby reduced any room for maneuvering, having landed themselves in total political dependence on the US.

And now it’s payback time and this is only the beginning. Now the leaders of major European countries – President of France Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel – had, clenching their teeth, to make concessions to the energetic US leader. In order to avoid a trade war with the US which Trump threatened them directly with and to preserve an opportunity to expand energy cooperation with Russia, the EU agreed to increase its purchases of LNG and soybeans in the US. Incidentally, the theme of the EU independence from Russian gas supplies that was in fashion 10-15 years ago was imperceptibly replaced with dependence on the US. The formal responsibility for foreign trade negotiations with the US was placed on the European Commission, which allowed the leaders of Germany and France the opportunity to avoid having to personally give in or be subject to any similar humiliation. Earlier they tried to resolve the matter at a political level but did not succeed. So, the chief Brussels bureaucrat was sent to give the Americans the keys to the fortress.

It has become a tradition in the European Union that political problems do not get resolved but have become a mountain by the end of the year. The last summit before all the EU leaders took their breaks and went on holiday concentrated on the attempts to find a common solution to the immigration problem – the absence of effective regulation of the incoming flows of refugees from Africa and the Middle East to Europe. Although their number is ten times less than it was in 2015, the delayed political effect proved to be substantial. In Italy, the third-largest EU country in terms of population and economy, the key position of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior was occupied by leader of the right-wing Northern League party Matteo Salvini. He immediately and demonstratively closed Italian ports to refugees in the Mediterranean and on sea vessels belonging to humanitarian organizations. At the same time Minister of the Interior in the German coalition government and Head of the Bavarian Christian Union Horst Seehofer actually threatened Angela Merkel with the collapse of the difficult-to-form cabinet if she does not bring back concrete decisions from the EU summit. Such decisions were made, and the most indicative of these was an initiative to establish special processing centers for refugees in the EU or in third countries. At the same time the EU countries reserved for themselves an opportunity to combine European and domestic measures as regards refugees. On the whole it is obvious that by virtue of its complicated internal and external position Europe has proved to be relatively easy prey for Trump.

EUROPE’S THIRD STRATEGIC DISASTER AND THE FUTURE OF THE WESTPHALIAN ORDER Timofei Bordachev
The balance of power concept is the optimal, if not perfect, method of maintaining peace between nations. This is why it was predominant from the mid-17th to the early 20th century, or practically the entire period that Europe dominated world affairs. It was only Europe’s first geopolitical disaster (1914-1918) that put an end to the balance and for that matter to the rules-based wars as such. After WWII, the number of important world powers was reduced to just two – the USA and the USSR – and relations between them were not those of a balance of power. They were transformed into containment in terms of substance and mutual deterrence as a method of maintaining global peace.

In turn, Trump demonstrated a completely different approach during his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Not only did he show respect for a more seasoned world leader, but also demonstrated the desire to stabilize relations. The US President understands that Russia’s demographic and economic potentials pose no strategic threat to the US. Moscow may cause trouble when it is hurt. But putting it straight, the maintenance of sufficiently high living standards of most Russian citizens does not require the ousting of the US from the international market of commodities and, most important of all, resources. This cannot be said when it comes to China. Going by the way China is behaving it is becoming increasingly more clear that it is a real alternative to the US as a supplier of stability, primarily economic stability , and it is also an importer of resources. It is not by chance that several days ago now a group of high-ranking US officials made statements to the effect that China is waging a full-scale Cold War against their country. In such conditions the conflict with Russia that has been mounting over a period of the last decade, has become a manifestation of carefree foreign policy. Therefore, realizing that bilateral relations are at their lowest point and that domestic competitors will not allow him to make peace with Russia, and being a pragmatic, Trump will still be searching for some relative stabilization of ties with his typical stubbornness. America vitally needs this for its most important struggle in the next few years – the endemic confrontation with China. The aim of this confrontation is to create unsurmountable barriers for the spread of China’s might wherever it can, which will eventually face Beijing with a direct clash, for which China is not prepared, or strategic surrender that means the renunciation of global ambitions. So Asian countries were not bored in July, either. The trade war between the US and China will gradually turn into a system-wide confrontation, while strong statements made by the Chinese leader during the past year will have to play the role of constraining factors in his own foreign policy.

Summing up the results of the past major events it is possible to say that the world remains flat but it is not a sheet of glass resembling the sea on which commodities together with ideas sail along without a hitch. It is rather an unpredictable stormy ocean that does not have mercy on anyone and does not give anyone a break.

Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.