A New Sheriff in Town

“There is a new sheriff in town”, declared Vice President J.D. Vance at the Munich security conference a year ago, announcing a dramatic shift in the relationship between Europe and the USA. One thing is for sure: A sheriff gives the orders while the other side has to obey.

Vance’ words followed deeds. Let’s examine how the former alliance, a once unwavering pillar of the Western Post World War II order crumbled within a year. The transatlantic partnership was based on shared values - rule of law, civil rights, democracy, political and economic cooperation. NATO, the military defense alliance, was created as a bulwark against the threat of totalitarian Communism.

True, the partnership between the USA and Europe was never on a par. The U.S. leadership was undisputed (possibly with the exeption of the proud French), the U.S. shouldered the greatest financial burden for the military defense. Admittedly, Europe felt quite comfortable under this umbrella. Also true, Europe did need “big brother” to interfere in the Yugoslavian conflict as it now needs the U.S. to fend off the most recent Russian aggression. But the partners on both sides of the Atlantic consulted, cooperated and spoke on amicable terms – to mutual benefit. This changed swiftly within the last year:

The EU was bullied into accepting unilaterally imposed tariffs on its exports to the US while American exports to the EU were to be completely exempted from all dues. The so-called trade deficit was a welcome pretext – it nonchalantly ignored the US surplus in services.

When the National Security Strategy report was published late last year, the roles had been reversed. While real opponents like China, Russia, North Korea are rarely mentioned, the main target is now … the European Union. Its determination to reign in hate speech and instigation is labeled “censorship” … by an administration which does everything to suppress opposite opinions, bullying and extorting universities and the press alike. The accusation of Europe “undermining […] Western civilization” sounds absurd when coming from an administration which tried to intervene in fair elections. The threat of further interference is also crystal clear: the U.S. will “help Europe correct its current trajectory”. One can’t ignore the message, and the message is that the current U.S. government aims to destroy – or at least to weaken - the European Union as we know it. “Divide et impera” as the Romans declared and practiced. And the U.S. administration does currently everything to achieve its goal: by encouraging states like Hungary, Italy, Poland, and Austria to break off from the EU, countries with either a far-right government like Hungary and Italy or with a substantial far-right voter block. It might be a miscalculation – with the exemption of buddy Victor Orban these countries’ loyalty is still with Europe. When Vance attended the aforementioned conference in Germany, the only person he explicitly wanted to meet was Alice Weidel, the chairwoman of the ultra-right “Alternative for Germany” - AfD – while members of the German government - the Chancellor, the Secretary of State - were shunned. Could anyone overlook the message whom the current U.S. administration wants to govern Germany in the future? U.S. technocrats “help” financially to make this happen.

However, a sheriff – to go back to J.D.’s vision – is not above the law, on the contrary he has to enforce it. So what, when the sheriff switches sides and he is the one who violates the law? It is something unprecedented. It’s understandable that the European governments first had to take a breath when confronted with the fact, that one member of NATO threatened to invade another NATO state. NATO’s role had always been defined as an alliance against an outside enemy. What to do when suddenly the enemy is found within its own ranks? This scenario was so inconceivable for the founding fathers that there is no mechanism how to deal with such a situation. Do the other members invoke Article 5 in case of an U.S. invasion? It is in particular bitter for the Danish military, as its soldiers paid the highest death toll after the Americans in the war in Afghanistan, a war, Europe had no stakes in. Now they are confronted with the not so theoretical situation to defend their country … against an American aggressor. If the U.S. administration is really so concerned about Denmark’s/Greenland’s security, why did it abandon the more than a dozen military bases it once had on this island? The treaty from 1941 – aimed against Nazi Germany – is still in place, just revive it.

How should the EU react to this changed situation? First and foremost,

· Acknowledge that the times of coziness are over.

· Don’t cry over spilled milk, the past cannot be revived.

· Readjust the situation and look what the options are.

· Get back on your own feet: Invest in your own security and gain greater military independence from “big brother”.

· Bury your inner-European pettiness and rivalries, put your national egotism aside, close the ranks, join forces, cooperate.

· Look for other partner – politically and economically – without burning all the bridges to the USA.

I was therefore quite enthusiastic, when – after 25 years in the making – the treaty between Mercosur – the association of Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay – and the EU was signed at the beginning of the New Year. My hopes, however, were dimmed when the national egotism of some European countries procrastinate its implementation. Let’s hope that similar treaties with Indonesia and most recently with India won’t share the same fate. As the American saying goes: “Every kick in the butt is a step forward” – and in this respect I am very American.