Category Archives: Obama and US Foreign Policy

Salvaging the Moribund Relationship: The New President and Trans-Atlantic Ties

“We don’t see things as they are, we seem them as we are.”

–Anais Nin

Introduction: The world as it flows toward multipolarity

The Anais Nin quotation which opens this piece stands in direct contrast to the realist ethical imperative of Edmund Burke, that to do good we must see the world as it is, warts and all. Both, of course, are correct; Burke holds the key to doing both good and well in the world. Nin presents us with the pitfall—ourselves–that gets in the way of our doing so.

And here, for all their myriad, debilitating problems, the Europeans certainly have the intellectual edge over their American cousins. I am struck in my constant recent travels across the continent how almost all serious analysts of the left, right, and centre (barring the usual euro-fantasists in Brussels) understand that Europe as a political entity is in either relative (at best) or more likely absolute decline as a power on the face of the earth. Between the endless economic crisis (the IMF projects the Italian economy will not return to its pre-Lehman crisis size until a far-away 2025), the structural flaws in the creation of the euro currency, the refugee crisis, and the corresponding rise of populism, to quote Dylan, ‘You don’t need a weatherman/To know which way the wind blows.’ For all their many troubles, at least European analysts clearly see them.

Strikingly, the same is not true across the Atlantic. While in theory most American analysts accept at some level that Europe is in dire straits, they have no real idea—as their European colleagues so definitely do—that the continent is presently beset by existential crises which require all of its member states’ time and energy to deal with, effectively rendering Europe isolationist.

When your house is on fire, you find it hard to have a conversation with a neighbour about the church fete next week. In just such a way, while German decision-makers still talk to their American counterparts about China, what has been lost in the exchange is how theoretical (and immediately unimportant) such a chat is for those in Berlin. Until Americans understand that Europe’s turn inwards is based on its overwhelming present historical challenges—and is not a matter of them absent-mindedly taking their eye off the geostrategic ball—the transatlantic relationship will continue to disappoint.

For if the Americans cannot see the true state of what Europeans are going through, they are even less likely (particularly President Trump’s Jacksonian nationalist aides) to see themselves as they are in the mirror. While the American economy (unlike Europe’s) has bounced back adequately from the Great Recession, the notion that the world is now one of many powers (rather than merely reflecting American effortless dominance) and that this means there are new and real limits on America’s freedom of action, is utterly lost on them. Yet the new Trump administration whistles past the graveyard at its own peril. The tombstones of all former Great Powers are littered with the same epitaph, ‘It’s just a little local difficulty.’

The greatest analytical problem of all is the poisonous tendency of Great Powers to assume their dominance is forever (as they all do), and to expect that their present difficulties will be easily surmounted, signifying nothing. While sometimes that is so, on other occasions intractable political problems spell the dramatic end of a Great Power, or at the very least a change in the overall global power structure. For Donald Trump’s America, while it remains easily first amongst equals in the new multipolar world, failure to precisely see America’s correct place in the new global order almost certainly dooms his overall foreign policy to failure. The simple truth is America no longer calls all the shots in the world. To assume so, and to behave as if this is so, merely accelerates America’s relative decline.

What the Trump Administration Should Do About Trans-Atlantic Relations

Barack Obama, our first multipolar President (even as Trump’s unilateralism as a foreign policy strategy only works if we found ourselves in an age of American structural dominance), successfully downgraded the absolute centrality of the trans-Atlantic relationship, while maintaining it as an important American interest. Best of all, he did this without anyone much noticing.
There were a few grumbles about how the Obama White House didn’t ‘understand Europe’ (meaning in code valuing it enough) but the transition was accomplished without plunging the alliance into crisis. The eminently sensible reason for this downgrade was not due to a lack of understanding of the continent, but instead due to a very good understanding that in the new multipolar world, Europe is not as important as it once was.

This new structural reality guided the Obama administration not to ask too much of Europe, as exposing its strategic haplessness to the rest of the world—changing global perceptions of the continent for the worse—would merely harm America’s closest allies. The first rule of the new administration (and I am sadly certain they will not follow it) should be to follow in the old White House’s footsteps and not publicly demand too much of a Europe that is unlikely to deliver.

In this vein, Obama has quietly let the trans-Atlantic free trade deal (TTIP) languish and then die. He has not pushed Europe (once Chancellor Merkel explained the situation to him) to do more regarding Russia in Ukraine. He has asked little of the continent over the Middle East. All of this has cloaked the basic structural reality that one of the two pillars of Western dominance in terms of global ordering is utterly beset with its own problems, and is unable to function any longer as part of a West that orders the world.

President Trump, in not asking too much, would do well to not make Europe’s endemic weakness more apparent to all. However, being a Jacksonian nationalist, and largely oblivious to the change in global power realties, I fear he thinks a pep talk with Berlin will suffice to make Europe pay its fair share of defence costs immediately. Instead, a more sustained strategy is in order.

Second, and again following on from the Obama White House’s success, the new Trump administration should defer to Europeans when the issues involve European interests more than American ones. Obama, while having deep (and correct) misgivings about the German-inspired austerity plans that have roiled the continent, wisely largely kept such feelings to himself. To pontificate—as Trump does about everything under the sun on twitter–on intra-European problems almost always backfires, leading to the predictable charges of American meddling, and poisoning the trans-Atlantic well further.

Regarding issues on Europe’s periphery, Obama also tread carefully. He kept mum about the refugee crisis, not criticising a hard-pressed Chancellor Merkel when the shortcomings of her policy became obvious. Even over Russia, after hearing the Germans out about the stupidity of arming the Ukrainians, Obama managed to keep his Wilsonian-dominated political party in check. Merkel pointed out the tactical reality that Russia was prepared to expend far more blood and treasure to affect the fate of a state on its border than either America or Europe ever would. Trump, with his lodestar being American national interests above all, is curiously more likely here to follow in Obama’s footsteps than would have the activist Wilsonians clustered around his rival, Hillary Clinton.

Third, the new President—given the nature of the new multipolar world—must work tirelessly to bind the old trans-Atlantic alliance together to engage the rising regional powers across the globe to be stakeholders in keeping stability going in the new, more chaotic era. The good news is that the vast share of the rising powers are both democratic and capitalistic; the West has won the true values argument without noticing. As such, there are no ideological impediments of any kind in engaging Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Nigeria, Indonesia, India, and re-affirming ties with older allies such as the UK, Japan, Australia, and Canada.

In any multipolar system (such as in the late Victorian era, with America in the Western Hemisphere, Japan in Asia, Germany in Europe, with the British Empire the only omnipresent power) ordering is done at the regional level. Jointly engaging the new rising powers—something the Obama administration did not even begin to do—must become a major part of what the old trans-Atlantic relationship is about. Almost nothing is more important than that the old locus of stability—the trans-Atlantic partnership– expands to include enough regional ordering powers in our new multipolar era. As such, ‘trans-Atlantic-plus’ is the ultimate key to the success in the new age we live in. However, as Jacksonian nationalists—who are deeply suspicious of entangling alliances in all their forms—are now in charge, this vital strategic task is unlikely to even get off the ground.

What the Trump Administration Should Do About NATO

In line with the structural contours of the new multipolar era—with trans-Atlantic relations still constituting a major interest (if one relatively declining in importance) the new administration should both ask less of NATO, but then hold its allies to perform this lesser overall role far better.

Long gone are the Wilsonian and neo-conservative fervid daydreams about NATO forming the nucleus of some sort of global police force. In the same vein post-Cold War efforts for the alliance to look for a new role—as there were no geostrategic threats on the unipolar horizon of the 1990s—or to go out of business, looks like nothing so much as the amusingly antiquated relics of a brief, bygone era.

I argued then what I argue now. It is a classic error to make either too much of NATO, or too little. While life insurance is not sexy, it is a necessary part of life. NATO exists as the ultimate form of political and geostrategic life insurance for the European continent, a reality which means its viability strongly remains in the interests of both the Europeans and of their American allies.

Further, NATO still keeps the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down (integrated in a multilateral setting is the politer phrase). That is what most Europeans and Americans still want and is the basic strategic reason the alliance has endured. There is no need to go looking for new reasons for NATO’s raison d’etre, when the old reasons more than suffice.

The new administration must make the relevance of its own red lines (as the Kremlin has made its spheres of influence views brutally obvious in Ukraine) crystal clear to both friend and foe alike. While President Obama said all the right things about NATO being America’s red line, he did not use the bully pulpit of the presidency to do so nearly loudly enough. President Trump should have his functionaries keep up a relentless drumbeat on this basic strategic point (I have found repetition is a key to foreign policy clarity) and he himself should use the occasion of an early speech in his tenure to unequivocally and forcefully underline America’s strategic policy.

The new president should also speak plainly, privately, and directly to President Putin about the primacy of NATO in terms of American interests. His exchange should go something like this.

‘It is true that the Baltic states will be hard to defend, and that at the time of their accession there should have been more discussion as to their perilous strategic position. However, we are where we are. I am here to tell you that while Ukraine and Georgia matter far more to you than to us, the same is not the case regarding the Baltic states. For if they are threatened in any way, shape, or form, be in no doubt that America and its European allies will spring to their defence. This is not because of their intrinsic value to us, but because failure to do so would obviously neuter NATO, the most successful military alliance in the history of the world, a primary American power multiplier, and a central American national interest. Be in no doubt, we will do what we have to do to defend any NATO member state because the alliance remains central to American global strategic interests.’

That clarity ought to do the trick. And the President-elect can do clarity well.

In line with the precepts for trans-Atlantic relations I have delineated above (and to which NATO issues must always be a sub-set), the Trump administration should be as privately insistent (not publicly hectoring as President-elect Trump too often is) as it can be about the cancer that has long eaten away at NATO: The lack of equitable burden-sharing. For Donald Trump has exposed a nerve that has become embedded in the American decision-making consciousness. I have found from my own experience that any Congressman—however clueless about the state of the wider world—knows one big thing: America’s European allies simply don’t pay their fair share of our common defence.

It is risible and unfair (and politically poisonous in America) that Europeans cross subsidise their early retirements and generous social benefits on the backs of American taxpayers. And in our new era, with Europe remaining an important but relatively declining American interest, it will no longer be tolerated for long. Far more than Vladimir Putin, this internal political time bomb is the greatest threat to the continuing health of the Atlantic alliance.

Here the fable of the boy who cried wolf causes real strategic danger. Perpetually overly sanguine European decision-makers serially overrate their importance to America, pointing out that the US has been complaining about the lack of European military spending since the dawn of NATO. And indeed, the numbers in 2015 provide for a lot to complain about. Despite solemnly agreeing in treaty form to meet the base 2% of GDP spending target NATO has set for its members, incredibly only 5 of NATO’s 28 members met this modest commitment (the US, Britain, Estonia, Greece, and Poland). At 3.6%, the US spends by far the most, accounting for a politically unhealthy 72% of overall NATO defence spending.

Italy, Germany, and Spain are the primary serious power culprits, at 1.2%, 1.1% and an incredible .8% respectively. Overly sanguine European observers are correct in that in the past in the Cold War if the Europeans had spent nothing at all, the US would likely have come to its defence and established some sort of alliance with the continent, so central was its importance to American strategic thinking.

During the brief period of American hegemony in the 1990s—after the collapse of the USSR and before the rise and rise of China—America could easily strategically afford to pocket the NATO bill. However, in this new era of American nationalism, Europe is no longer as relatively important to America as it once was, nor is a US in relative decline able to blithely continue to pick up the tab. President Trump must make this change in circumstances privately but bluntly clear to America’s European allies, convincing them that this changing strategic reality means that this time the wolf is indeed at the door. If Europe wants to renew its long-term life insurance policy, it is time to actually pay the premium in terms of increased defence spending so the hard-pressed American public will continue to support the trans-Atlantic alliance.

Conclusion: The sad reality of a Jacksonian President

Given the world that we live in, that is what the new president should do regarding trans-Atlantic relations and NATO. However, that is not what the new President will do. Oblivious to the change in the structural nature of the world, Donald Trump is far more likely to barge into the continent like a bull in a china shop, unwittingly causing a major trans-Atlantic crisis. Look for him to publicly demand (rather than privately cajoling) America’s European partners pay their fair share of our common defence.

And look for Europe to do absolutely nothing (or at best as little as possible) about this central (and entirely correct) demand, as they, unlike President Trump, have a thorough understanding of the different and immediate existential crises that bedevil and utterly preoccupy Europe, to the exclusion of all else. At this point a real and dangerous trans-Atlantic crisis is likely to be upon us. As Donald Trump’s public and immediate ‘ask’ will be met by an embarrassed ‘no’ by his allies.

It is then that two things will be made plain to all. First, Donald Trump’s overall foreign policy will be doomed to failure as he simply does not understand the basic state of power in today’s new era. Second, that Europe and America have diverging strategic interests, with an isolationist continent wholly consumed by its efforts to merely survive. Tragically, it is then and only then—after all the unnecessary damage that will be done—that my realist strategy for the trans-Atlantic alliance will then be taken seriously, as a way to pick up the pieces.

Published in Aspenia December 2016

Donald Trump is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in powder keg Asia

Donald Trump is off to a surprisingly good start. While his enemies in the Democratic party and the American press (which is largely the same thing) froth at the mouth, enraged that their world view has been found wanting, the President-elect has assembled a thoroughly solid cabinet up to now.

While there are some (to coin a phrase) deplorable picks–such as alt-right guru Steve Bannon as political adviser and the monomaniacal General Michael Flynn (everything is about ISIS and radical Islam) as National Security Adviser—on the whole this is a cabinet Mitt Romney, or for that matter President Eisenhower, could have chosen.

Easily the best choice so far has been General James ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis to be Secretary of Defence. Despite his colourful nickname and near-legendary status as a fighting Marine, Mattis is blessedly more George Marshall than George Patton. Thoughtful, well-read and well-travelled, Mattis—a man with Marcus Aurelius by his bedside, which counts for a lot—has already convinced the emotional President-elect that there are better ways to get information from prisoners than waterboarding. Mattis could well be, following in Marshall’s footsteps, the next great Secretary of Defence.

All this good news has led to Trump’s favourability numbers soaring. Last week’s Bloomberg poll gave him a favourable rating of 50%, stratospherically up from a mere 33% in August of this year. The President-elect is enjoying an Indian Summer in a country that has made it clear it is hungry for a new direction.

Saying this, the iceberg of governing looms ahead, when Trump’s many inconsistencies and unpredictability will prove more a hindrance than the help they have been in making him the ultimate elusive moving target in American politics. Nowhere is this truer than in Asia, where the President-elect is in the muddle-headed process of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

During the Obama years, America’s geostrategic position in East Asia has gone from strength to strength. While China under Xi Jinping has counter-productively bullied the region by its throwing its weight around in the East China and South China Seas, America has been the ultimate beneficiary. At present, US ties to old allies Japan, South Korea, and Australia have rarely been closer while links to new and pivotal allies such as India, Vietnam, and other Asean states have never been better.

Capping all this off is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the jewel in the crown of the Obama administration’s Asia pivot. TPP is a free trade deal which is about far more than free trade; in essence it economically locked in this burgeoning alliance, nurturing America’s ties—both strategic and economic–with the fastest growing region in the world. By planning to withdraw from TPP, Trump, in his protectionist know-nothingism, has undone eight years painstaking work in a matter of weeks.

The consequences are sure to be dire. Not missing a beat, the very effective Chinese have made the rounds of the region, noting that America, following its abrogation of the TPP deal, is not to be trusted. Instead, Beijing has sensibly enough offered its own trade deal as an alternative, pointedly excluding the US much as TPP side-lined China. Erratic Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, in his pivot to Beijing, may amount to the canary in the coal mine, the first of many putative American allies now set to desert Trump’s unpredictable and irrational America.

It is in this context that Trump’s phone call to Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-Wen must be viewed. There is nothing wrong with shaking up the status quo with China in theory; for it is true that Beijing has yet to fully open its market to American goods in a reciprocal fashion. There is also nothing wrong making it clear to China that old shibboleths (such as pretending long-time American ally Taiwan does not exist) are up for debate.

Indeed, this is not necessarily a bad opening negotiating position with Beijing in general. But Trump’s bold new posture becomes folly as it has been done unilaterally without consulting America’s allies in the region, nervous about American inconstancy in the first place.

This is because, as much as Trump might wish the multipolar world away, it exists as a fact. In mindlessly abrogating TPP, Trump has cost America the sure-fire support of the Asian allies who are absolutely essential to have on board if a harder line with China is to be successfully pursued. In throwing in Obama’s winning hand in East Asia, Trump has been neglectful of alliances which are the only chance for the US to strategically prevail in the long term.

Published in City AM London, December 13, 2016.

Saudi Arabia has surrendered control of the global oil market to US shale


“Ending wars is very simple if you surrender.”

–P.J. O’Rourke

The new OPEC deal to cut oil output—its first since 2008—amounts to nothing less than Saudi Arabia’s surrender to the power of American shale.

It has come about due to Riyadh’s belated, horrified understanding that it has utterly lost control over the energy market, running through its capital reserves in the process. Rather than young, feckless Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman using Saudi Arabia’s John D. Rockefeller strategy to permanently drive US shale out of the energy market, the exact opposite result has occurred. Unwittingly, the Saudis have made the Americans the new global energy swing producer, the permanent ceiling for the global price of oil.

This, in its way, is as momentous a shift in global power as the stunning recent Brexit and Donald Trump votes. Whereas Brexit showed Europe to be in absolute decline, while the election of Trump brings to an abrupt end 70 years of the US as the global ordering power, the Saudi’s meek surrender brings to a close the long age of the OPEC domination of the world’s energy market. 2016 truly has seen the death of one world order, along with the uncertain birth of another.

The details of the new OPEC pact make it clear that even this belated effort to quell the self-imposed bleeding brought on by Saudi attempts to drive US shale out of the energy market—by, in Rockefeller style, over-producing to drive down prices and eradicate their competitors—is problematic at best.

OPEC as a whole agreed to cut 1.2 million barrels per day (bpd) from production from the beginning of the new year, with the Saudis themselves bearing the brunt of the cuts with a personal reduction agreed to at just under 500,000 bpd. But as OPEC now accounts for less than half of all energy output in the world, it is a very weakened cartel, now dependent on the kindness of strangers to survive.

Externally, this means Russia. The new global energy reality has been forthrightly addressed in the accord, as the interim deal is contingent on securing a further 600,000 bpd in cuts from non-OPEC members, with Russia expected to contribute a 300,000 bpd to this total.

Unsurprisingly, the Kremlin is less than enthused, as Russian oil minister Alexander Novak blandly said that at best his country would only cut its production gradually, due to ‘technical problems’. OPEC isn’t much of a cartel if it is utterly dependent on major (and generally unwilling) outside players such as Russia to make its internal agreements work.

While the Saudis are hoping to persuade the Russians to go along with their fragile deal, to reach even this stage meant Riyadh wholly giving way to their hated enemy within the cartel, Iran.

Just recovering from years of sanctions due to its nuclear programme, all this past year as the Saudis have frantically tried to reach an OPEC-wide deal to cut its ruinous losses, Iran has held firm that it has no intention of hurting its just unbound economy to take one for the team. In the end, the Saudis had to meekly acquiesce, allowing Iran to continue to ramp up production, helping their sworn enemy in a way that must have put the House of Saud’s teeth on edge.

So even after surrendering to Iran, and assuming the Russians can be generally corralled to accept cuts of their own, there is a final problem with the Saudi inspired OPEC accord. The cuts are estimated to leave global oil production at 32.5m bpd, a historically high rate of supply unlikely to lead to much of a rise in the price of energy at all.

Even should prices sustainably drift upwards, all this will do is make American shale—far more price sensitive and far more capable of being quickly brought on line than the fixed rigs of the OPEC member countries—turn the spigots back on, with its production rising and the price consequently falling.

The Saudis, having utterly lost the plot, are now—as the problems inherent in this deal make all too clear—trapped in a world where they no longer control the global energy scene. It seems even the surrender terms the OPEC deal represents will not be accepted by Riyadh’s competitors. And they have no one to blame for this state of affairs but themselves.

Along with Europe as a great power, and America as the world’s ordering power, the myth of Saudi energy dominance is the third great dinosaur to be felled by the asteroid that is 2016.

Published in City AM London, December 5, 2016.