Tag Archives: European Union

Year of the Nationalist

In a great outpouring of respect, the world came to Washington in December to say goodbye to one of the last century’s great champions of liberal internationalism, President George H. W. Bush. The touching remembrance of a life spent connecting nations reminded us all about the value of international cooperation. However, we have to be honest with ourselves that democracy around the world is increasingly under stress.  President Bush’s funeral took on the flavor of a valiant appeal to world leaders to once again reject the forces of nationalism and authoritarianism that ignited the world twice during the last century. Despite this, the struggles that tested President Bush so many times during his career have reemerged. Therefore, we are dubbing 2018 the “Year of the Nationalist,” a moniker we hoped never to attribute to any year since the Great War buried nationalism in the misery of Flanders Fields.

A Shaky Future

Europe is at the epicenter of massive challenges to the liberalized democracies that have kept the peace since the conclusion of World War II. Lingering effects of the 2008 global recession combined with refugee crises from Syria and Libya have invigorated the demons of the globalized economy. These stressors left many feeling abandoned, and their frustration fueled a rise in nationalism. Anti-immigrant parties won large sections of governments throughout Europe. The anti-immigrant party of Sweden is now the country’s third largest political party. Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, showed such undemocratic tendencies, it prompted the typically diplomatic European Union to condemn his authoritarian leadership style. The Freedom Party in Austria, part of the governing coalition, has past ties to the Nazi Party; and Poland, currently governed by the nationalistic Law and Justice Party, is no stranger to recurring far-right demonstrations.

Meanwhile, France is experiencing nation-wide demonstrations against liberal reform initiatives, and the United Kingdom (UK) is struggling to come to terms with the aftermath of the 2016 Brexit vote. In Death of Brexit: Return from the Right, Adam Pharaoh asserted the Remain faction had initially underestimated the strong forward momentum of the British economy following the Brexit referendum but was belatedly proven right. He concluded correctly (in January) that Brexit-related economic pressure could lead ordinary Britons to call for another referendum. Indeed they did, but as the political turmoil accelerates with the approaching endgame, a second referendum is politically unlikely, leaving a worst-case “No Deal Brexit” as the only probable result.

At the exact moment the UK is withdrawing from the European Union (EU), nationalist impulses in the Trump Administration are casting doubt on America’s commitment to NATO. Cracks in Alliance unity have real consequences and may be the reason for recent tests of resolve by Russia, which seems on the verge of a massive escalation in Ukraine following a crisis at sea resulted in the capture of three Ukrainian ships by Russia. Meanwhile, China’s Belt and Road Initiative is expanding Beijing’s influence into an uncertain EU by pushing increased reliance on Chinese investments in Eastern Europe. This convergence is causing real fear throughout the European community and reviving an old idea about the utility of a European army. In A Tale of Two Armies: Defending NATO, Steve Nolan argued that a European Army is at odds with the EU’s purpose and would, regrettably, dilute critical support for NATO itself. Worse, it would further strain relations with the US and ultimately be a liability to the security of Europe rather than its guarantor.

Authoritarianism Reigns

Europe is not the only region experiencing resurgent nationalism. Latin America has its own brand of authoritarianism fueled by rampant organized crime and corruption. In Tearing Down the Walls, Ligia Lee described the crisis associated with transnational gangs in Central America and analyzed a corrective measure that depends on international outreach rather than seclusion behind walls.

Looking further south, John Boswell discussed tensions in Peru over last year’s pardon of its former president, Alberto Fujimori, in Pardon Me: Peru’s Fujimori Problem. The controversial leader was serving a 25-year prison sentence for corruption and human rights abuses when his pardon resulted in nationwide protests and a condemnation from the UN Human Rights Council. That drama and the political turmoil surrounding it has since brought down President Kuczynski and landed Fujimori’s daughter Keiko – herself a powerful presidential candidate – in jail on a “preventative sentence”.

Though Peru seems at the front end of an excruciating period of political soul-searching, nothing compares to the immense man-made disaster playing out in Venezuela. The failure of authoritarian nationalism in the Bolivarian Republic is the genesis of an exploding humanitarian catastrophe. In Maduro Drones On, Lino Miani argued that President Maduro’s repressive tactics to maintain power have degraded security in what was once South America’s richest state. The attempted assassination of Maduro by aerial drones marked the first notable proliferation of the technology outside of the Middle East and should serve as a wake-up call for security practitioners everywhere.

MBS
Authoritarianism personified: Mohammed bin Salman is the face of one of the world’s last functional monarchies.

The Status Quo Remains

While democracy continues to struggle in Europe and Latin America, the Saudi-Iranian rivalry is inspiring the worst impulses of authoritarian nationalists from Ankara to Aden. In Master of Puppets: Pulling the Strings in Turkey, Nuno Felix called into question the stability of President Erdogan’s power as his pursuit of the now exiled Fethullah Gülen continues for its fifth year. This history describes the context behind Erdogan’s authoritarian tactics to amass power and sheds light on his more recent attempts to exploit the murder of Jamal Khashoggi to drive a wedge between regional rival Saudi Arabia and the United States.

In The Huydaydah Trap, Lino Miani outlined the precarious position of the United States in balancing regional conflicts. With strategic resolution of the war in Yemen focused on a single port city on its Red Sea coast, the sum total of centuries of geopolitical rivalry is concentrated on the previously unknown port of Hudaydah. Though most experts agree that battle there will trigger unimaginable suffering by famine and disease, America’s humane and decent call for a ceasefire could revitalize a beleaguered Houthi resistance and prolong the misery of millions.

Best Wishes

Our analysis throughout 2018 highlights the issues that result from a global shift away from international cooperation. We hope President Bush’s funeral will serve as a bulwark against authoritarian nationalism and not as a memorial to international cooperation itself. Though we will never be able to predict the future, one thing we can all agree on is that a well-informed public is a good thing. Our hope is to provide you with the best context to issues facing our world. Follow us throughout 2019 to receive more insightful articles as we make sense of a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape. For now, we at the Affiliate Network would like to wish you a very happy holiday season and a great beginning to the new year.


CrushThe views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views of any government or private institution.

Major John “Crush” Gerlach is the Blogmaster and editor for the Affiliate Network. He is a US Air Force Officer and C-17A Weapons Instructor Pilot with deployments in support of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. He is currently serving as an Olmsted Scholar in Lyon, France.

 

A Tale of Two Armies: Defending NATO

During the NATO Summit in Brussels earlier this year, the President of the United States, leader of one of the founding member states of the Alliance, stunned the world when he reportedly declared – in a meeting of the heads of state and government – that the USA would “go it alone” if the Allies failed to increase defense spending. With Alliance unity considered a lynchpin of security in Europe, the mere perception of cracks in its armor could make 70 years of peace vulnerable to collapse. In response, some European Union (EU) members are reviving an old idea and seeking to reverse Europe’s reliance for its security on the United States by creating another military apparatus: the European Army. To some, the concept is a fool’s errand. It runs counter to NATO and is at odds with the EU’s purpose. More importantly, it is harmful to the relationship between Europe and the United States.

Fundamentals

“World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it.”

– Robert Schuman

In 1946, as Europe struggled to rebuild after the Second World War, a young State Department official named George Kennan wrote there could be “no permanent peaceful coexistence” with the Soviet Union. With those few words, Kennan summarized the political reality that would dominate American strategic thinking for the next 50 years. Thereafter, the looming Soviet threat forced western European nations toward greater military and economic integration and inspired support from the United States which otherwise would have retreated into its traditional isolationism. Announcing his plan for the recovery of Europe, George Marshall, then US Secretary of State, claimed the “remedy [to prevent further deterioration] lies in…restoring the confidence of the European people in the economic future of their own countries and of Europe as a whole.” As Nicolaus Mills explains, “the genius of the Marshall Plan was that it enabled the countries of Western Europe to look upon one another not as rivals competing in a zero-sum game but as partners with a chance to gain from each other through liberalized trade and interchangeable currencies made reliable by American backing.” European security, at least in the American view, began with sound economic fundamentals.

Unfortunately, the USSR remained undeterred and continued to spread Communist influence throughout Eastern Europe. On April 4th, 1949, as a result of this seemingly uncontested expansion, twelve European nations and the United States ratified the Washington Treaty establishing NATO as a mechanism to deter and repel Soviet aggression. Accordingly, European countries began integrating their economies through a series of treaties that provided a formal construct for their collective economic interests. The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the European Economic Community (EEC), and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC), among others, fostered a cooperative international environment whereby each nation could better control its destiny. Perhaps by design, they also formed the foundations of what would become the European Union.

Senior British and French officers during NATO exercise in West Germany (1950)
Senior British and French officers during NATO exercise in West Germany (1950) Source Credit: Imperial War Museum

Concerned about the overwhelming combat power of the Red Army in 1950, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) contended “the appropriate and early rearming of Western Germany is of fundamental importance to the defense of Western Europe against the USSR.” France vehemently opposed this idea and offered an alternative. Designed to stop German rearmament, the French Plan, designed by Defense Minister René Pleven, called for a highly integrated European Army. The UK worried Pleven’s “European Defense Community” (EDC) might weaken NATO, but did not refuse the treaty outright. The American government, an early advocate for rearming Germany, questioned the logic of Pleven’s proposal. The US Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, claimed the EDC was “hastily conceived without serious military advice… unrealistic and undesirable.” In the eyes of western officials, the Pleven Plan, and ultimately the EDC, would result in “duplication, confusion and divided responsibility.” Though several European nations agreed to the terms contained within the Treaty Establishing the European Defense Community on May 27, 1952, the French Parliament refused to ratify it. The EDC collapsed and the allies quickly integrated the Federal Republic of Germany into NATO, allowing West Germany to rearm under a “collective self-defense” organization. France’s concern for German rearmament subsided, and with it, the push for an army outside NATO became a great taboo of the Cold War.

The European Army Reemerges

2018 NATO Summit
2018 NATO Summit Source Credit: Express.co.uk

Contemporary politics and a shaky transatlantic relationship are the rationales behind the European Army’s recent resurgence. US President Trump’s demand for NATO allies to pay their “fair share and meet their financial obligations” enflames Europe’s desire to extricate itself from the US-dominated security relationship. Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission President, expressed this sentiment in a 2015 interview saying, “A joint EU army would show the world that there would never again be a war between EU countries… such an army would also help us to form common foreign and security policies and allow Europe to take on responsibility in the world… a common European army would convey a clear message to Russia that we are serious about defending our European values.”

It is therefore unsurprising the EU began developing a joint military investment strategy exclusive of NATO and the United States in November 2017. Under the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) agreement, EU members agreed to leverage their combined economies of scale while not explicitly adhering to NATO’s defense spending goal of two-percent gross domestic product (GDP). Responding to US concerns that an increase in EU defense spending could distract from NATO activities, the European Council President, Donald Tusk, warned the United States to “appreciate [its] allies, after all [it doesn’t] have that many.” The rhetorical back-and-forth between western nations continues to drive the United States and its European allies farther apart and provides fodder for some to demand a robust, Europe-only, military apparatus. In late August, French President Emmanuel Macron verbalized this idea, telling European ambassadors “Europe [could] no longer entrust its security to the United States alone. It’s up to us to guarantee our security.”

A Tale Not Worth Retelling

Overt discussion of an extra-NATO military organization is no longer the great taboo it was during the Cold War, but the European Army generates more questions than it answers. The stated aim of the European Union was to end “the frequent and bloody wars between neighbors” by creating a common economic and financial market for European nations. It was never intended to compete with NATO as a provider of multi-lateral military power. The logic the UK used to protest the EDC in the 1950s is still applicable today; that a vote for the European Army dilutes NATO’s resources, degrades its unity of effort, and convolutes the EU’s purpose. With over 70 years of experience working through common funding, command-and-control, training, standardization, doctrine, and capability development, NATO remains the gold standard of collective defense. By contrast, Europe has not developed protocols for controlling the European Army, resolving conflicts between member states, or even disputes between those member states and the EU itself.

European leaders should recognize the dangers of moving forward with their own military unless their long-term goal is to mitigate US influence over European military spending. Perhaps goaded by spite for the current US Administration, Europe is on the brink of a major strategic error. In this tale of two armies, an untested and unfunded European Army is not only a poor substitute for NATO, but it is also a threat to the viability of the Alliance and the security of Europe.


Major Steve “SWAP” Nolan is a US Air Force Weapons Officer, C17 Instructor Pilot, School of Advanced Air and Space Studies (SAASS) graduate, and is currently serving as the Director of Operations for the 21st Airlift Squadron, California. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Human Resource Management and three Master’s degrees in Business Administration and Operations Management with a focus on Air Mobility Logistics, and Military Strategy. Steve recently published an article discussing how the US Air Force can improve its talent management practices and is currently working on another article based on his SAASS thesis: Triggers, Traps, and Mackinder’s Maps – The Russian Bear, NATO, and the Near Abroad.

Death of Brexit: Return from the Right

The 2016 Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom (UK) was the surprising outcome of a national plebiscite. Initially dismissed as a long shot by many political scientists, there is now a degree of consensus that the result reflects a delayed response to the effects of globalization in general and to the 2007-2009 Great Recession in particular. The problem is very real as large groups of blue-collar workers see their opportunities decreasing and their jobs moving to cheaper labour markets in Asia and elsewhere. As the dust settles on the referendum, the question remains whether Brexit is really the cure for the malaise that led to it or whether more sober voices in the United Kingdom will drive alternative solutions.

Project Fear Redux

In the campaign before the vote, the Remain argument relentlessly focused on the likely economic consequences of Brexit, arguing that living standards would fall and jobs would be lost as investment dried up. Brexit campaigners labelled this “Project Fear” and mocked the professional economists that issued warnings as “know-nothings”. For a time, it seemed the Brexiteers were right.

After Brexit day in June 2016, the United Kingdom’s economy continued to prosper and showed little evidence of damage other than an immediate 12-15% fall in the value of the British Pound relative to both the US Dollar and the Euro. In fact, in 2016 the UK’s economy remained one of the best performing of the G7 large Advanced Economies, growing at 1.8%. It was as if the ship had hit an iceberg but nothing had changed up on deck. Though Brexiteers continued to ridicule the “know-nothings”, by the end of 2017 a very different story was emerging.

The United Kingdom is now one of the slowest growing of the G7 Advanced Economies, likely to register only a 1.5% growth rate for 2017. Investment is down and inflation is now over 3%; the highest in the G7. Inflation adjusted wages and consumer confidence are also falling with particularly dramatic decreases in car sales, down over 12% year on year in October 2017 according to the Financial Times. As the threat of Brexit grows imminent, the International Monetary Fund is very clear about Brexit’s increasingly negative effects on the United Kingdom’s economy. More worrying, the British Government cut its own economic growth forecasts for 2018 to 2022 more heavily than it has for any other five-year period in the last 40 years. Private forecasts are also broadly of the same view.

It is now abundantly clear that the so called “know-nothings” were not so much wrong as simply guilty of underestimating the strong forward momentum of the British economy at the time. A sharp fall in the exchange rate following the June 2016 referendum, combined with the Bank of England’s accommodative decision to cut the UK Base Rate from 0.5% to 0.25%, certainly aided the economy’s short-lived momentum. If the central bank did this with the intention of softening the blow, it did not last long. Project Fear it seems, is making a comeback.

The Will of the People

At this point, avoiding Brexit will not be easy. Any reversal of Brexit depends upon a significant and sustained shift in public opinion. Without it, Parliament is highly unlikely to vote down the Government’s impending deal, due in late 2018, that will set the terms for the UK’s exit from the European Union (EU) in March 2019. The earlier deal with the EU in December 2017 provided proof—if it were required—that the UK is being out-negotiated by a much better prepared team in Brussels. Indeed, on all main points of agreement so far, the UK has accepted the EU’s demands; something many Brexit supporters are starting to see as a sign of the UK’s weak negotiating position.

brexit
British Prime Minister Teresa May meets with Jean-Claude Juncker, European Commission President at the EU headquarters in Brussels. Photo credit: https://www.voanews.com/a/eu-brexit-talk-next-phase/4154812.html

However, Britain’s poor negotiating performance in the halls of the European Commission in Brussels will not turn the tide alone. This will only happen when ordinary men and women begin to suffer from Brexit’s negative consequences. Given the way the economy is now slowing, it seems the average Briton is in for some very poor economic news over the course of 2018. In the initial referendum, 48.5% voted to remain in the EU but polls suggest the British are changing their minds. The most recent poll taken just before Christmas shows 53% now wish to remain in the EU, with a noticeable shift by middle and working class women concerned about potential impacts on jobs and family finances.

As this national change of heart accelerates in response to bad economic news, calls for a second referendum will become louder. The Government can and probably will ignore them initially but once the polls start showing 60% in support of a second referendum and/or a desire to stay in the EU, the dam will break. Just as “the will of the people” was used by the pro-Brexit media to bludgeon the current Government into a Brexit-at-any-cost policy, so too will public opinion embolden Parliament to stop the Government on this reckless path.

Different Solutions

Addressing the challenges of globalization, the Great Recession, and the loss of secure jobs for average to low-skilled workers remains a critical policy challenge for all Western governments. And whilst the populist spasm that resulted in Brexit is understandable, it is surely not the solution. The alternative to the low tax and small government mantra of right wing populism is likely to be a centre left agenda comprising more state intervention and investment in public services such as healthcare and education. Experimentation with more radical ideas such as a citizens’ basic income may also become more widespread, especially as artificial intelligence and other job destroying technology washes over the economy.

All this favours Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, which is committed to a more radical, anti-globalization agenda than the current Brexit-supporting Tory Party. With the British anti-globalization fight thus championed from the left rather than the right, it is possible the same phenomenon could take place in the United States, reversing the rightward trend occurring in politics there since 2012. If events in the UK continue this way—a prospect which seems likely—the death of Brexit could mean a return from the right. This effect will be felt not just in London, but in Washington too, producing a global impact that will make an increasing number of British voters very proud indeed.


Adam Pharaoh is a former Auto (Volvo & GM) and Pharma (J&J) industry executive that now runs Pharaoh & Company SPRL, a consultancy on Strategy and Organisational challenges, mainly in Europe and Asia. He is a close observer of UK and EU politics and contributes regularly to debates in The Financial Times. He lives in Brussels.

For more on Brexit from The Affiliate Network, please see:

The Sky is not Falling on the European Union by Victor Angelo

The Spark to Redefine “Europe” by Nick Avila

With or Without the EU: Brexit and Security by Victor Perez-Sañudo