Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 182

Thread: NATO summit

  1. #61
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    4,026
    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    Did you not commit to 2% minimum or was this simply a worthy goal to be reached in the undefined and very nebulous future?
    Taking current commitments into account, we are guided by the following considerations:
    • Allies currently meeting the NATO guideline to spend a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence will aim to continue to do so.
    • [...]
    • Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will:
      • halt any decline in defence expenditure;
      • aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;
      • aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.


    Wales Summit Declaration
    Last edited by kato; 30 May 17, at 23:34.

  2. #62

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,826
    Taking current commitments into account, we are guided by the following considerations:
    "•Allies currently meeting the NATO guideline to spend a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence will aim to continue to do so.
    •[...]
    •Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will:
    •halt any decline in defence expenditure;
    •aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;
    •aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls."


    Not so nebulous but oh so distant and, is that correct, uber-rich Germany can still reliably be counted among those who don't instead of those who do?

    Guess there's lots of ways to measure "reliable". No doubt but that Germany would lead from the rear with any future European defense organization if the present and past is any indicator. Of course, absent big bro, maybe the pucker factor from going it sans USA perhaps shall elevate focus and determination.

    If leaving NATO got Germany and others off their azz wouldn't that be a net improvement for all intents and purposes?

    We apologize for enabling your lassitude.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

  3. #63
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,568
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    citanon,



    yes, i agree that the argument of the US having to do our share, or the argument that the "US presence in Europe does not have anything to do with a commitment to defend Europe" is complete nonsense.

    but to circle back to where this all started: DJT going in to a NATO forum, publicly berating and lecturing everyone, does the US no favors in this regard. it backs politicians into a corner, with positive action looking like kowtowing-- and kowtowing to the dictionary definition of an Ugly American, to boot.

    our commitment to Europe is by action ironclad, but DJT's words do much to undermine it. and the only person laughing is Putin.
    For the most part I agree, except for the very last. For many in the group of leaders at the NATO summit looked past his words.

    One in particular decided to take umbridge for her own purposes.

  4. #64
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,568
    Quote Originally Posted by kato View Post
    Attachment 43866
    Hint: You're not the only ones down there.


    Uh, for that you'd have to settle collectively on what actually constitutes a benefit.
    And why don't you ask your own people who are down there what they think of the US commitment to NATO, or whether Europe collectively benefits from those US actions around the world?
    Last edited by citanon; 31 May 17, at 03:02.

  5. #65
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    8,018
    Great that the other uber-reliable European NATO nation, the UK, got dumped into the unreliable category.

    Frau Merkel, you might not like Herr Trump but you need him
    John Moody
    By John Moody
    Published May 30, 2017
    Fox News

    Here’s some unsolicited advice for German Chancellor Angela Merkel: Achtung!

    Merkel’s uncalled-for remarks about the United States no longer being a trustworthy partner for its European allies set off a frenzy. Was she so displeased with President Trump during last week’s G-7 meeting? Was their discourse so strident that she thought a verbal warning shot was necessary?

    Or is she just trying to keep her job?

    Remember, Germany has federal elections scheduled for September, and Merkel, while slightly ahead in most polls, has no sure lock on keeping her party, the Christian Democrats, in the majority. A strong, though receding surge for Socialist Martin Schulz, and a newly energized far-right party, the Alternative for Germany, has squeezed the chancellor, who has been in power since 2005.

    But Merkel’s horrible decision to open the gates of Europe to tens of thousands of refugees from the Middle East and Africa turned her own people against her. Only Germany’s robust economy has saved her from humiliation in the last round of local elections – often an indicator of how federal elections will turn out.

    Since she invited migrants into her country, and forced her neighbors to do the same, Europe has suffered nearly a dozen major terror attacks, none more horrific than the December 2016 Christmas market truck massacre in Berlin, which killed 12 and left Germany feeling very exposed to lone-wolf Islamic horror.

    And who was among the first to decry Merkel’s come-one, come-all policy? Donald Trump. Who spoke up about the lopsided trade deficit the United States has with Germany? Donald Trump. Who lectured European members of NATO – specifically Germany – about not paying its fair share for the continent’s defense. Same answer.

    Among her European counterparts, Merkel is used to being treated with deference. Germany is really the economic engine for the entire continent, and the only country willing to shell out its own resources to bail out the ne’er-do-wells like Greece, who have become addicted to free money.

    When the United Kingdom opted out of the European Union last June, Merkel took it as a personal affront and has since schemed to make the U.K. pay a heavy price for its willfulness.

    You might not like Mr. Trump, Frau Merkel. He is rude and outspoken and typically, in your view, American. But remember: Russia is to your east. Vladimir Putin is not impressed with the paltry defense force Europe could put together, if it did not have the United States behind it.

    Verstehen?

    John Moody is Executive Vice President, Executive Editor for Fox News. A former Rome bureau chief for Time magazine, he is the author of four books including "Pope John Paul II : Biography."
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...-need-him.html
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  6. #66
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,099
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    If any colleague of mine approached a Muscovite Ambassador and asked to use their communications systems as a 'back channel' I would have him (or her) arrested and interrogated as soon as I found out. Most importantly I would want to know who or what motive prompted such potentially treasonous action. Even it transpired there was an honest and appropriate reason for this extraordinary behaviour I would never trust that person again. That is not normal. Sure we all "know people who know people" who can deliver a message if required - though I have never seen fit to do so personally and usually it is not my call to make - but what Kushner is alleged to have done; that is offering to commit treason as in the first place it compromises the person making the request.
    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    So...we've become "unreliable" for meeting our commitment consistently since NATO's inception but now wondering whether we should? I suppose but I'm to consider those who consistently have punched WELL below their weight the benchmark of "reliability"?

    Let's establish that Europe has comfortably piggybacked on our largesse, men and determination for seventy plus years. Europe's contributions to its self-defense has, on the whole, not collectively equated America's contribution on their behalf. Each nation? Not even worth discussing when measured against America.

    Kato, however, offers Afghanistan as a firm example of "reliability" as opposed to, I suppose, America's dilettante and fickle nature.

    A skewed perspective were there ever one.

    Trump's concern reflects a long-standing concern here in America regarding our "allies". Nothing new but for the German knee-jerk reaction to a long-deserved public shaming. I, ummm..., hate the guy and am embarrassed that he's my President but there isn't a thing off point if he calls to question Europe's commitment to itself, much less its commitment to America.

    Germany lead? Sara's point there is well-founded. The Bundesbank is quick to call its notes for failure to pay. Were America only as swift and certain.

    Sir,keep in mind the Rumsfeld division of Europe,watch for your own strategic interest and just ignore Brussels bureaucrats and their masters.
    Is simple as that.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  7. #67
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    4,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    keep in mind the Rumsfeld division of Europe
    True. Deutschlandfunk's first OP-ED on Merkel's speech was titled "Old Europe Strikes Back".

  8. #68
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    4,026
    Trudeau has chosen sides for Canada: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/merk...rift-1.4138585

  9. #69

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,826
    "...Trump blasted 23 of NATO's 28 members for not spending enough on the military alliance to meet its two-per-cent of GDP target, a group that includes Canada..."

    Surprising how hurt feelings abound.

    "...The government presents its long-awaited defence policy review next week, but few are expecting it to contain a major spending boost."

    The Canadians have long been smugly certain of their security. Call me underwhelmed.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

  10. #70
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,059
    citanon,

    For many in the group of leaders at the NATO summit looked past his words.

    One in particular decided to take umbridge for her own purposes.
    look at the context of it.

    Merkel just won big in the state elections, but did so despite pushing for $27 billion in increased military spending over 3 years-- something that is highly unpopular among Germans (2/3 are against it), and which the German left is making political hay from. for that matter, she even told Pence just before the NATO conference that "We will do everything we can in order to fulfil this commitment."

    and now Trump swoops in, loudly beating his chest, hectoring and lecturing European leaders in a way that he never did with the Saudis. he then goes on a Twitter tirade specifically threatening Germany on trade.

    what exactly would a non-response from Merkel look like to German voters?
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  11. #71
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    4,026
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    something that is highly unpopular among Germans (2/3 are against it), and which the German left is making political hay from.
    It's even more complicated than that.

    The SPD was likely preparing a major campaign move using Trump as a galvanization point, relying on Merkel mollycoddling and appeasing him as she's been doing since the start of his campaign (and that's something that most Germans don't agree with, but see as a weak position of her). Note how within two days you had Gabriel, Schulz and Oppermann as the SPD lead triad speak out against Trump in person, topped with the virtually unknown SPD whip Katarina Barley managing to use the opportunity to put herself in the media - the day before the SPD suddenly rochades her into the federal government. Due to the entirely personal attack the effect would have been a short one, and one calculated to ride on the somewhat utopic notion that 70% of Germans currently entertain - that Trump will (not should, will) be impeached anyway. The SPD motion likely would then have culminated in a political stance that cornered traditional Green topics to draw some voters from there, in addition to a counter-protectionist stance that would feed on FDP and CDU voters, possibly also gaining some patriotic votes from the CDU if played the right way.

    Merkel preempted that. And while doing that she both also pandered to the patriotic crowd (it's not Germany, but at least Europe) and positioned herself on a topic (European Unity) where people tend to give Schulz the upper hand on competence. She didn't do it on military spending either - that would have cost her favour from the right side, anti-militarism is a decidedly left-of-center topic - but generalized, also appealing to those who felt that she had let some past transgressions slide (under Obama, for example). The way she did it gives her bonus points both in her own camp and from right-wing SPD voters, while isolating both edges of the CDU - AfD and FDP - in their pro-Trump/pro-American stance.

  12. #72
    Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Oct 06
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by kato View Post

    From me? No.

    There are politicians on this side of the pond who really, really strongly detest that Trump did not make an Article 5 commitment while unveiling a memorial for the only Article 5 application in NATO's history - a memorial that on this side is seen as a reminder of Article 5 and of the fact that the only time it was enacted was to defend the USA - not Europe.
    Not acknowledging that? That's not just Trump being Trump. That's treason to the NATO charter and everything NATO stands for. And that one's a sentence i'm serious about.
    Treason to the NATO Charter? my opinion to that whole paragraph is that anyone in Europe (particularly Germany and France) can go F themselves then if that's what they believe.

    I'm still bitter that the US had to fly an over water route (instead of over France) in the 80's to bomb Libya.

    If Germany and Europe are that offended and feel the US is that unreliable, bring all the U.S. troops and equipment stationed there home and have a nice day.

  13. #73
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    4,026
    Quote Originally Posted by bfng3569 View Post
    If Germany and Europe are that offended and feel the US is that unreliable, bring all the U.S. troops and equipment stationed there home and have a nice day.
    That's ... kind of a hollow threat. Those who know what US troops and equipment are stationed in Europe for what purposes today know why.

  14. #74
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    8,018
    There are politicians on this side of the pond who really, really strongly detest that Trump did not make an Article 5 commitment while unveiling a memorial for the only Article 5 application in NATO's history - a memorial that on this side is seen as a reminder of Article 5 and of the fact that the only time it was enacted was to defend the USA - not Europe.
    The "unreliable" UK and non-Yurrup Canada did a lot of lifting on that one from the non-US/non-Afghan contingents. Sending a handfuls of troops with restrictive rules of engagement while paying nothing for ones own defense shouldn't obligate the US to put up much more than a medical team protected by a troop or two of boy scouts in the face of a Russian advance. Trump IMHO did the correct thing with his no-Vaseline criticism, European nations seem to have decided that NATO membership means that America has to protect them no matter how much they fuck off and refuse to invest in their own armed forces.

    That's treason to the NATO charter and everything NATO stands for. And that one's a sentence i'm serious about.
    Like selling off the vast majority ones tanks and then bitching when called out for refusing to put money into defense.


    German ambassador: If US withdraws from Paris agreement, China may become world leader

    by Tom Rogan | May 31, 2017, 11:04 AM Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Email this article Share on LinkedIn
    On Tuesday, Germany's ambassador to the United States, Peter Wittig, sat down and spoke with the Washington Examiner. (AP Photo/J. David Ake)

    Reports suggest President Trump will imminently announce a U.S. withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. On Tuesday, Germany's ambassador to the United States, Peter Wittig, sat down and spoke with me. He made it clear that Germany sees the Paris climate deal as part of the "international order," similar to NATO. U.S. withdrawal from Paris would impel Germany to turn instead towards China.

    Here's what the ambassador had to say about the Paris agreement and broader notions of international order. The key elements are highlighted in bold.

    Washington Examiner: What is your takeaway from the recent G-7 summit in Italy, and NATO summit in Brussels?

    Ambassador Peter Wittig: Well, it was the first G-7 summit where this newly elected president participated, so it attracted a lot of attention. You know that the chancellor had come to Washington to pay a visit here in March. One of the ideas of that visit was to prepare for the G-7 and more importantly for us, because we are presiding over it, the G-20 summit in July. It [the G-7 summit] got a lot of attention because there was criticism about the appearance of the president. And if you refer to the latest headlines that [the summit] made, I'm very sober about it, because the chancellor has been saying all along that Europe has to take its fate into its own hands. She did that in the light of recent challenges to the European Union. So that is not something particularly new. The chancellor is a known lifelong Atlanticist. She values the relationship between the United States and Germany and she's adamant about forging a very constructive relationship with this president. But at the same time we think it is important, even imperative is talk about the differences we have. And one of the differences that came up at the G-7 meeting is, of course, our approach to climate change. We're not seeing eye to eye on this issue. But that doesn't mean that the bilateral relationship or the U.S.-European transatlantic relationship is tarnished. It's a sign we have to talk about our differences.
    •Analysis: The ambassador's comments are diplomatic-speak for Germany's great disappointment, specifically its disappointment that President Trump seems to have abandoned the Paris climate agreement. But note that these comments are also qualified: Germany knows it must maintain a relationship with Trump even if he withdraws.

    Washington Examiner: Chancellor Merkel is prioritizing climate change, and President Trump is prioritizing defense spending by NATO member states. But some Americans might ask, if we're being asked to commit to timelines in climate change agreements, why shouldn't Germany commit to a shortened timeline to get to 2 percent [of gross domestic product, the NATO target for member state defense expenditures]?

    Wittig: There is a timeline. It's a timeline that was laid down after the NATO summits in Cardiff in 2015 and Warsaw in 2016. And mind you, both of those summits came after the annexation of the Crimea by Russia. That was clearly a sea change in our relationship — also in the relationship of NATO — towards Russia. Those summits highlighted the need to raise defense spending among all member states. But the language at those summits was very careful. It said that within ten years from 2014 countries commit themselves to move towards the 2 percent of GDP target. This is an incremental approach. And we are committed to it. We raised defense spending by 9 percent last year. But what we have to clarify here is that there's nothing we owe to NATO. It's not like a membership in a club with the membership dues haven't been paid. The common costs of NATO have always been paid by Germany.
    •Analysis: This is a problem for Germany. Like many other European nations, the German government doesn't want to increase defense spending. At the same time, however, Germany expects the U.S. to sign up to a timeline-fixed agreement on carbon emissions. That seems hypocritical and incongruent with fair diplomatic dealing. Note also in the following two questions. In both cases, the ambassador's answer is uncomfortable.

    Washington Examiner: Why not say, regarding that ten year timeline, instead of moving toward 2 percent, we will reach 2 percent within ten years?

    Wittig: Our Parliament controls spending and controls the armed forces. It's a totally different system to that of the United States.

    Washington Examiner: But Chancellor Merkel could push for that change.

    Wittig: Of course, and she has done so. And she has presided over a rise in our defense expenditure in one year alone by 9 percent.
    •Analysis: Again, what we see here is Germany's desire to slightly increase defense spending and then pass off that increase as evidence of a sustained effort to reach the 2 percent GDP target. The problem? Even after recent increases, Germany spends just 1.2 percent of GDP on defense.

    Washington Examiner: How do you see Germany's relationship toward China? The U.S., for example, is concerned about China's construction of artificial islands in the South and East China Seas. But other U.S. allies such as the U.K. are very much focused on the economic opportunities China offers. Where does Germany strike the balance between trade and economics, and upholding the liberal international order?

    Wittig: We hope that China can become a responsible stakeholder in the liberal international order. Germany is the No. 1 trade partner of China in Europe. We have had excellent relations with China at the leadership level. The chancellor visits each year. We have a lot of important interests at stake in a cooperative relationship with China. There are also divergences that we articulate to the Chinese. When it comes to the international order, there should be no vacuum. If we lose American leadership, others will step in. The recent "belt and road" conference in Beijing was a reminder that China is ready to step into a possible vacuum that the U.S. might be leaving.
    •Analysis: This is a big deal. The ambassador is offering a very, very unsubtle implication that were the U.S. to withdraw from the "international order" — of which the Germans regard the Paris agreement to be a key component — China would find a positive reception from American allies. But what's most striking to me here is the apparent shortsightedness. In essence, Germany is saying that ''if you don't agree with us on Paris, we will start preferencing China''. This also affirms that the EU's commitment to liberal international order is pretty paper thin. China's imperial island campaign is largely ignored by European powers. Instead, they have their eyes on China's investment dangles.

    Conclusion: The horizon of U.S.-EU relations is a tough one. China and Russia will be loving this
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ge...rticle/2624537
    Last edited by troung; 31 May 17, at 19:26.
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  15. #75
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    4,026
    Trump's loss is Li's gain as Berlin rolls out red carpet for China's PM

    By Thomas Escritt | BERLIN

    China's Prime Minister Li Keqiang arrived in Berlin on Wednesday at the start of a European tour, poised to jump into the global climate change leadership gap left by U.S. President Donald Trump's impending withdrawal from the Paris climate pact.

    China's number two official was received with military honors at Chancellor Angela Merkel's office, becoming the second leader of a rising Asian giant to visit in as many days after India's Narendra Modi.

    The flurry of visits come as concern grows in traditionally Atlanticist Germany at Trump's forthcoming announcement on the Paris Climate Accord, designed to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions scientists blame for rising sea levels and droughts.

    One source briefed on the decision said Trump would pull out of the pact.

    At the G7 summit of wealthy nations this weekend, European and Canadian officials warned Trump that the U.S. risked ceding global leadership on combating climate change to China if it withdrew from the pact.

    China, long recognized as the world's dominant trading power, now hopes that by showing leadership on the fight against climate change it can translate its economic might into yet greater political influence.

    "With the One Belt One Road initiative China has promoted itself as the country leader in environmental topics and multilateralism," said one senior adviser to a G7 government, referring to China's newly-created Eurasian cooperation forum.

    Under Merkel, a passionate fan of the United States as a teenager growing up in communist East Germany, Europe's richest country has been steadfast in its Atlanticism, even during the presidency of George W. Bush, which was marked by unilateral U.S. actions.

    By contrast, relations between the world's two exporting giants have often been tense, with China's plans to introduce a minimum quota for electric vehicle sales a thorny current issue that Germany is expected to raise at this visit. A quota would hurt Germany's still internal combustion-focused car industry.

    But since the G7 summit, Merkel and other senior German politicians have signaled that they do not see a Trump-led U.S. as a reliable partner on a host of issues from free trade to climate change.

    On Tuesday, she congratulated Modi for India's "intensive" commitment to the climate pact during his visit, which was seen as a sign of Berlin shifting its focus toward Asia in response to Trump's stance.

    After Berlin, Li will continue to Brussels, where, at a China-European Union summit, both sides are expected to make a declaration on their commitment to tackling climate change - a proclamation designed to send a strong message to Trump.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ge...KBN18R2ED?il=0


    Macron and Merkel can make Europe great again

    By Parag Khanna
    Updated 1205 GMT (2005 HKT) May 31, 2017

    Parag Khanna is a senior research fellow in the Centre on Asia and Globalisation at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore. The opinions in this article belong to the author.

    (CNN) Angela Merkel has had enough. Just a day after the perfunctory G7 meeting in Sicily, she returned to Germany and declared to an audience in Munich that the United States and UK are no longer reliable partners, and that the US in particular has "weakened the West" and is out to undermine the European Union.

    This isn't the first time Merkel has stepped up to defend Europe's honor. In a similar speech in January, she warned the United States that it had no "eternal guarantee" of cooperation from Europe.
    At a time when Donald Trump is scolding Europeans to pay more for their own defense, he should be careful what he wishes for. A trans-Atlantic divorce -- or parting of the ways -- has long been in the offing.

    Europe's new found confidence stems partially from Brexit. Brussels, Luxembourg and Berlin have been running circles around London in the Brexit negotiations, throwing British politics into disarray with an election looming.
    With the British strategy toward negotiating its exit from the EU a shambles, "old Europe" feels it has cast off England's yoke that regularly acted against the interests of wider and deeper union.

    Then there's the pro-European results of the Dutch election in March and France's recent election: another a decisive victory for European unity.
    Emmanuel Macron clearly held his own in his first extended handshake with Trump -- and made sure to greet Merkel before Trump (or any other head of state) when the leaders assembled in Sicily.
    Together, Merkel and Macron implicitly know they are the new Franco-German axis that must, as Merkel said in Munich, "fight for our own future and destiny as Europeans."
    These election results, combined with the eurozone exceeding economic growth expectations this year, mean that it faces little risk of falling apart as so many have been predicting for nearly a decade.
    The big question that will dictate the future of Europe is to what extent Merkel gives ground on the strict posture her government has taken toward issues such as Greece's debt and Italy's banking sector.
    Though she is poised to win September's election and enter a fourth term as Chancellor, she may need to form a "grand coalition" once again with the rival Social Democrats. And if the critical post of finance minister then goes to her election opponent Martin Schulz, he could bend Merkel in the direction of greater fiscal solidarity with southern Europe's ailing economies. With nothing left to lose politically, she might well offer them a bit more flexibility.
    Even if Europe's rebound continues along a bumpy path, make no mistake that Trump's naked desire to keep Europe weak and lack of commitment to the Paris Agreement on climate change are the straw breaking the camel's back. Europeans aren't going to wait for a Trump impeachment to plan for life beyond the American alliance. However much they may disagree on finance and immigration, finding unity in distinguishing themselves from American policy matters significantly.
    The next step is for Europe to return to policies that make it a whole greater than the sum of its parts. There is no lifeline like the liquidity that comes from pooling economies.

    Now could be the time for the institutional modifications seen as unnecessary before the financial crisis and politically infeasible since: A fiscal compact, capital markets framework and banking union -- all of which, if interest rates can be yanked ever so slightly into positive territory, will enable genuine restructuring and attract trillions into the Eurobond market. Given time and support, the model works.
    Europe would then be better equipped for the mercurial geopolitical theater in which it must now act with far greater autonomy. Remember that this -- not trying to wind up Trump -- was the main thrust of Merkel's Munich speech.
    While Trump has accused Germany of being "very bad" on trade for its large surpluses, Germany and other European exporters have a massive and willing market for their goods: Asia.
    Indeed, the EU's trade with China, Japan, India, Australia, South Korea and Southeast Asia already exceeds its trade with the United States by about $300 billion per year -- and this has occurred before Europe grants China "market economy" status or signs free trade agreements with Japan, India and others.
    Europeans were an active presence at Beijing's One Belt, One Road summit two weeks ago. The Belt and Road Initiative is the largest coordinated infrastructure investment program in human history, and could easily generate $2 trillion per year in trade between Europe and Asia. Washington may soon realize that Europe is the swing superpower between the United States and China -- and is leaning toward Eurasian connectivity.

    This has enormous implications for two other major foreign policy challenges for the Trump administration: Russia and Iran. Amid serious allegations of Trump's campaign staff and son-in-law having murky dealings with the Kremlin, Trump is being forced to appear tough on Russia even though it goes against his and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's actual goals.
    But as Washington's Russia policy remains handcuffed by the ongoing investigations, count on Europe to break rank and re-engage with Russia, capturing new business opportunities as the economy recovers.
    A similar pattern will surely unfold with Iran. After Trump's tough anti-Iranian talk in Saudi Arabia, Europe is sure to lose patience with the American policy of futile confrontation. Neither sanctions nor isolation have worked to weaken Iran's clerical regime.
    Meanwhile, President Hassan Rouhani's convincing re-election means continuity in Iran's desire for greater engagement with the West. For many European companies, the train has left the station: Big ticket deals in energy, infrastructure, real estate and other sectors won't wait for Trump to get on board.
    The stars are aligning for Europe to reclaim a central role in the global strategic balance. Merkel and Macron are reminding their peers of the region's timeless strengths: world-class infrastructure, efficient midsize cities, social-democratic politics, locally rooted businesses, low inequality and rich cultural traditions.
    Take a deep breath: The 21st century will be neither the American nor the Chinese. Europe is going to do whatever it can to remain at the center of the map.
    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/31/op...e-great-again/
    Last edited by kato; 31 May 17, at 19:58.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. G20 Summit in Australia
    By tbm3fan in forum International Politics
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 17 Nov 14,, 12:37
  2. UN Carbon Emissions Summit
    By Merlin in forum International Economy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 23 Sep 09,, 15:03
  3. BRICS Summit.
    By xinhui in forum International Economy
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 18 Jun 09,, 00:53
  4. Annapolis summit
    By Parihaka in forum Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 27 Nov 07,, 03:11
  5. SAARC summit
    By pak_mudi in forum Small Arms and Personal Weapons
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03 Jan 04,, 05:47

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •