Jump to content

Trump policies unite allies against him at European security forum


webfact

Recommended Posts

Trump policies unite allies against him at European security forum

By Robin Emmott and John Irish

 

2019-02-18T070243Z_1_LYNXNPEF1H09H_RTROPTP_4_USA-SHUTDOWN.JPG

U.S. President Donald Trump heads back to the Oval Office after declaring a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border during remarks about border security in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, U.S., February 15, 2019. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

 

MUNICH (Reuters) - In 2009, then U.S. Vice President Joe Biden came to Munich to "press the reset button" with Russia. A decade later he came again to offer the world better relations, this time with his own country.

 

Promising that "America will be back" once Donald Trump leaves office, Biden won a standing ovation at the Munich Security Conference from delegates who find the president's brusque foreign policy stance hard to like.

 

But their elation also exposed the weakened state of Western diplomacy in the face of Trump's assertiveness, according to European diplomats and politicians who were present.

 

Biden's successor, Mike Pence, was met with silence at a reception in the palatial Bavarian parliament on Friday evening after he delivered his signature line: "I bring you greetings from the 45th president of the United States, President Donald Trump."

 

His four-day trip to Europe succeeded only in deepening divisions with traditional allies over questions such as Iran and Venezuela and offered little hope in how to deal with threats ranging from nuclear arms to climate change, diplomats and officials said.

 

Misgivings about Washington's role in the world are being felt by ordinary people as well as foreign policy specialists. In Germany and France, half the population see U.S. power as a threat, up sharply from 2013 and a view shared by 37 percent of Britons, the Washington-based Pew Research Center said in a report before the Munich foreign policy gathering.

 

Asked about European anxiety over Trump's leadership style, a senior U.S. official on Pence's Air Force Two plane said the vice president's Munich conference speech on Saturday at the Hotel Bayerischer Hof would "help give them a different perspective".

 

"TIT-FOR-TAT"

But if the Europeans did not like the "America First" message, there was no concerted response to it. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was on her own after a last-minute cancellation by French President Emmanuel Macron.

 

That caused some to lament the failure of the West to uphold the rules-based international order that Washington itself championed in the 70 years that preceded the arrival of Trump in the White House.

 

"The tit-for-tat logic is unfortunately prevailing ... I think that takes us back to the question of enlightened leadership," said Thomas Greminger, secretary general of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, a security and human rights watchdog.

 

"We need leaders again who do not believe exclusively in short-termism," he told Reuters.

 

It fell to China to aid Merkel in her defence of the post-World War Two order, as the country's top diplomat, Yang Jiechi, spoke in flawless English for over 20 minutes about the virtues of open trade and global cooperation.

 

Pence's message was, in fact, that the pillars of U.S. foreign policy were being rebuilt on a different foundation: isolating Iran, containing China, bringing American troops home and requiring European powers to fall into line.

 

BROKEN NARRATIVE?

After using a speech in Warsaw on Thursday to accuse Britain, France and Germany of trying to undermine U.S. sanctions on Iran, Pence called in Munich for the European Union to recognise Venezuelan congressional leader Juan Guaido as president over Nicolas Maduro, whom he called a dictator.

 

That drew an angry response from Spain's Foreign Minister Josep Borrell, who said the European Union could acknowledge Guaido as interim president until new elections, in line with the Venezuelan constitution.

 

French foreign minister Jean-Yves LeDrian said he was mystified by U.S. policy on Syria after Trump's decision to withdraw troops because it would only benefit Iran, which Washington wants to be tough on.

 

European diplomats and officials also took issue with Pence's insistence that EU governments stay away from Chinese telecoms companies as they build the latest generation of mobile networks, preferring first to have an internal discussion about the potential risks and U.S. claims of Chinese espionage.

 

"U.S. pressure has a tendency to make us do the opposite. U.S. pressure is counterproductive. It's best that they don't try and pressure us," a senior French diplomat said.

 

Whatever the threats, officials seemed to be mainly talking past each other.

 

Kumi Naidoo, global head of Amnesty International, said security was often defined too narrowly, failing to address the wider dangers of climate change.

 

    "The narrative here at the Munich Security Conference is broken. They are talking about the right topics but in the wrong language. The mentality here is that security is only a national issue," Naidoo told Reuters.

 

Leaving for Washington, Pence was unfazed, telling reporters his trip had been very successful. "We're advancing the interests of the free world, and we've made great progress." 

 

(Additional reporting by Paul Carrel and Andreas Rinke; Writing by Robin Emmott; Editing by Giles Elgood)

 

reuters_logo.jpg

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-02-18
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, webfact said:

Leaving for Washington, Pence was unfazed, telling reporters his trip had been very successful. "We're advancing the interests of the free world, and we've made great progress." 

Looks like he was more than shunned...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

What policies would those be? That NATO countries have to pay their fair share? 

No. It would be the isolationism, rejection of common allies and goals and attempted normalization of repressive regimes and strong-men, and the completely mistaken, unilateral, withdrawal from successful nuclear policy in Iran (because...? Obama??).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a neophyte president enters the world stage, and makes every attempt possible to destroy long held alliances with our closest allies, and then goes out of his way to defend, befriend, and coddle the world's most dangerous despots, it is cause for alarm. It is simply evidence that Donald Trump is the world's most dangerous man. At this stage in time, Europe represents a far more civilized culture, and one more interested in world peace, than the US. So, it is natural that the delusional Pence would be treated with the disdain he richly deserves, and Pelosi and Biden would be given the respect and honor they have worked hard for. 

 

And though he seemingly gets away with his extremist policies at home, once he leaves the relative safety of the US, by being surrounded by his devotees, outside of the country, it quickly becomes apparent Trump is absolutely despised by the vast majority of the world. For very good reasons. He is a disaster. Fortunately, we only have to endure 22 more months of this lame duck. He will not run in 2020. Mark my words.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

trump will probably try and spin the “silent contempt” into “awe struck silence”.

 

anyway.... the differing receptions received by Biden and Pence, underscore the fact that the rest of the world is on hold, until the end of americas little social experiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tug said:

You reap what you sow Donald is a pariah at home and abroad he is a laughingstock on the world stage a true dumpster fire of an administration 

Considering his critics couldn't even manage to sustain a bombing campaign against Libya, I would think they would be a little hesitant to run their mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, webfact said:

Promising that "America will be back" once Donald Trump leaves office, Biden won a standing ovation at the Munich Security Conference

????????????

Just like old days. Democrats???? and Europeans ???? hand to hand once again the old game of Middle East. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, car720 said:

Chinese economy = destroyed.

World economy = destroyed.

Trump = to blame for it all.

You need to re access the Chinese economy destroyed. Latest Chinese V USA trade figures for January are out. Chinese exports to the US dropped by 2.4% against the previous January while USA exports into China dropped a whopping 41.2%. And it’s a double whammy for the USA as a lot of that will be the huge crops that China buys from the US, that Trump has had to pay in subsidies to US farmers to plow them back into the ground. And you could probably add a triple whammy as China is now buying from other world producers so the old story of never giving a sucker a break into your markets will play out. One does not have to look hard to see who the sucker has been in his idiotic trade war. 

One minor positive is at least American corporates with world wide operations like the US corporate I work for are gaining market share as the Chinese look elsewhere in the world for their resources. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Pedrogaz said:

Europeans leaders have no backbone, spineless to a man/woman. They will fold to US demands, they always do. US vassals, nothing more. May I have another please, sir....

Well, I remember a certain number of them opposing the war about fake WMD in Irak. And those which supported it have been so ridiculised that they are getting more cautious now. Except Poland and a few other East European countries that are too afraid of Russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, beechguy said:

Um.... your linking a NATO initiative to tackle Gaddafi.... the US is a part of NATO, and the worlds largest supplier of munitions.... where would you get your munitions from, in need? Perhaps the worlds largest manufacturer? No?

 

what chance against Russia.... well as NATO is all about controlling Russia, and as the US is a part of NATO.... they would probably rely on the US, as the worlds largest manufacturer of munitions, to supply munitions

 

that said, with the US turning its back on NATO and world security, to concentrate on a wall dividing the North American continent, your right in expressing concerns about NATOs capabilities should the US withdraw, because Russia will be the winner of Donald’s initiative to withdraw... thanks Donald!

 

various countries form alliances for a reason.... NATO is a prime example of the strongest of post world war era alliances... and therein is the prime reason to maintain it, vs divide and attack allies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, farcanell said:

Um.... your linking a NATO initiative to tackle Gaddafi.... the US is a part of NATO, and the worlds largest supplier of munitions.... where would you get your munitions from, in need? Perhaps the worlds largest manufacturer? No?

 

what chance against Russia.... well as NATO is all about controlling Russia, and as the US is a part of NATO.... they would probably rely on the US, as the worlds largest manufacturer of munitions, to supply munitions

 

that said, with the US turning its back on NATO and world security, to concentrate on a wall dividing the North American continent, your right in expressing concerns about NATOs capabilities should the US withdraw, because Russia will be the winner of Donald’s initiative to withdraw... thanks Donald!

 

various countries form alliances for a reason.... NATO is a prime example of the strongest of post world war era alliances... and therein is the prime reason to maintain it, vs divide and attack allies

You're making my point, that can't do anything without us, they can't even build their own munitions, or plan well enough, to order in preparation. Again, the Allies that are critical, should consider their future, before running their mouth. They need us, a lot more than we need them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roadman said:

You need to re access the Chinese economy destroyed. Latest Chinese V USA trade figures for January are out. Chinese exports to the US dropped by 2.4% against the previous January while USA exports into China dropped a whopping 41.2%. And it’s a double whammy for the USA as a lot of that will be the huge crops that China buys from the US, that Trump has had to pay in subsidies to US farmers to plow them back into the ground. And you could probably add a triple whammy as China is now buying from other world producers so the old story of never giving a sucker a break into your markets will play out. One does not have to look hard to see who the sucker has been in his idiotic trade war. 

One minor positive is at least American corporates with world wide operations like the US corporate I work for are gaining market share as the Chinese look elsewhere in the world for their resources. 

Interesting though that Elon Musk and Tesla are supposed to have just transferred many of their operations bases to China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, beechguy said:

You're making my point, that can't do anything without us, they can't even build their own munitions, or plan well enough, to order in preparation. Again, the Allies that are critical, should consider their future, before running their mouth. They need us, a lot more than we need them.

Yet, the only time a NATO member has called upon others to come to its aid for military support was the US in Afghanistan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, beechguy said:

You're making my point, that can't do anything without us, they can't even build their own munitions, or plan well enough, to order in preparation. Again, the Allies that are critical, should consider their future, before running their mouth. They need us, a lot more than we need them.

Oh dear... this situation was engineered by NATO post World War Two, it did not happen by accident... it was a conscious decision in the treatment of arms and military bases in Europe as a whole, which enabled a lot more flexibility within NATO.

 

if the US withdraws, then Russia becomes the preeminent Europeans power, in which case, the US has potentially lost the ability to build up forces locally, (as it always does)... so the need is reciprocal, not as one sided as you portray.... your version is naive at best, but more probably xenophobic.

 

but... if the US does withdraw, the Germans will retool and start beefing up munitions manufacturing (history has shown they can), to replace US supply... ie... make them instead of buy them, which is the current MO.... and that is how easy it is to replace the US... start your own manufacturing (discouraged after WW2 for obvious reasons... right?), vs rely on what is looking like becoming an unreliable partner

 

So... who needs whom more?

 

As I said above, surely it’s reciprocal... or arguably, europe is more needed, as evidenced by the US putting more money into NATO than the European countries.... because they sure as hell don’t do it because they like giving money away.

 

and then, if Europe isn’t procuring munitions from the US, US manufacturing suffers, jobs are lost, profits fall... which is not good for your economy. Again.... your position is naive at best

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, beechguy said:

You're making my point, that can't do anything without us, they can't even build their own munitions, or plan well enough, to order in preparation. Again, the Allies that are critical, should consider their future, before running their mouth. They need us, a lot more than we need them.

Why do they need the HELP of their allies to fight their oil wars?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nato was supposed to keep the Germans down and the Russians out. But thanks to the disaster of German reunification, which never should have been allowed, the Germans are dictators of Europe and they're inviting the Russians to come right on in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

What policies would those be? That NATO countries have to pay their fair share? 

Don't pull US troops out of Syria where they are needed to finish off ISIS, protect the best fighters against ISIS (the Kurds) from Turkish aggression

and stop Iran (the biggest supporter of terrorism and the biggest supporter of Syria and Hezbullah. 

Instead pull All US troops out of Europe (where they are Not needed) and make Europe pay for their own defense.

Europe does not want you (that is a Trump US) Most of your other former allies are giving you the cold shoulder if not cold feet.

Go home. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, farcanell said:

Oh dear... this situation was engineered by NATO post World War Two, it did not happen by accident... it was a conscious decision in the treatment of arms and military bases in Europe as a whole, which enabled a lot more flexibility within NATO.

 

if the US withdraws, then Russia becomes the preeminent Europeans power, in which case, the US has potentially lost the ability to build up forces locally, (as it always does)... so the need is reciprocal, not as one sided as you portray.... your version is naive at best, but more probably xenophobic.

 

but... if the US does withdraw, the Germans will retool and start beefing up munitions manufacturing (history has shown they can), to replace US supply... ie... make them instead of buy them, which is the current MO.... and that is how easy it is to replace the US... start your own manufacturing (discouraged after WW2 for obvious reasons... right?), vs rely on what is looking like becoming an unreliable partner

 

So... who needs whom more?

 

As I said above, surely it’s reciprocal... or arguably, europe is more needed, as evidenced by the US putting more money into NATO than the European countries.... because they sure as hell don’t do it because they like giving money away.

 

and then, if Europe isn’t procuring munitions from the US, US manufacturing suffers, jobs are lost, profits fall... which is not good for your economy. Again.... your position is naive at best

After spending 10 years in the Persian Gulf, and a couple in out of Iraq and Afghanistan, working with the U.S. military, I think I have a pretty good handle on things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, beechguy said:

After spending 10 years in the Persian Gulf, and a couple in out of Iraq and Afghanistan, working with the U.S. military, I think I have a pretty good handle on things. 

And yet you seem to have problems understanding the interactions of an alliance.... together we stand, divided we fall.

 

The arrogance that you display, in comments made, is pretty woeful, and unwarranted, but probably a product of the xenophobic American education system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...