Would it mean an European Army or NATO without the USA?
We are just a few days into the second presidency of Donald Trump, and it looks like it’s going to be as bad as we feared.
After disowning it during his campaign, Trump is following the 2025 Project playbook.
He is firing thousands of federal employees in regulatory positions, probably in preparation to replacing them with loyalist.
He has paralyzed the NIH, the largest scientific organization in the world, by not allowing it to carry the meetings (Study Sections) that it needs to adjudicate billions of dollars in research grants. Without this money, all American universities will have to stop their most important missions.
He has sent his minions at ICE to business, churches and hospitals, detaining immigrants and USA citizens alike.
However, it’s in the international arena where he is probably doing the most harmful and long-term damage.
He wants the USA to take over Greenland, Canada and the Panama Canal.
This proposition is so extreme that nobody can take it seriously. Why? Because it threatens the most basic principles of international order and the most important alliance of the USA, NATO. If Trump were to make good on his threat, the international policy of the USA will completely disintegrate.
The Long Peace
In his book The Better Angels of Our Nature, Canadian psychologist Steven Pinker writes about the Long Peace, an unprecedented period without major wars that extends from the end of World War Two to the present. Although it includes the Cold War, with its attaining regional wars in Korea, Vietnam and Nicaragua, the number of war deaths during it were substantially smaller than in any previous historical period, at least as a percentage of the world population.
“Overall, the number of international wars decreased from a rate of six per year in the 1950s to one per year in the 2000s, and the number of fatalities decreased from 240 reported deaths per million to less than 10 reported deaths per million.” Long Peace, Wikipedia.
After the Cold War ended, world peace increased even more in what has been called the New Peace. Its most important threat is the current war between Russia and Ukraine.
The threat of nuclear war
Several factors contributed to the Long Peace, including the globalization of the economy, the increase in democratic countries, the awareness of human rights, and the unpopularity of war.
Perhaps the main one was the threat of nuclear war, which forced a de-escalation of any conflict between the major world powers, the USA, the Soviet Union and China.
Studies on Nuclear Winter done by Carl Sagan and other scientists in the 1970s showed that no nation could hope to win a full-scale nuclear war. Even if the USA could completely devastate the USSR and avoid retaliation, the amount of gases, dust and debris injected into de atmosphere would make life in America no longer possible. Worldwide, temperatures would plummet, harvests will be lost and everybody would freeze and starve to death.
Borders must be respected
Another factor was that the colonial era that ended with World War Two was followed by the establishment of nation-states all over the world. The rejection of the colonial system created the principle that no nation should violate the borders of another. The borders of the world were fixed in place.
There were some border changes at the end of the Cold War, but they took place because states like the USSR and Yugoslavia split into smaller nations, not because one nation invaded another. Still, the breaking up of Yugoslavia started regional wars in the 1990s.
The few invasions that occurred didn’t end well for the invader. Russia invaded Afghanistan in the 80s and had to retreat, like the USA in recent times. Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, started a bloody war that ended without changes in their borders. And when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991, the international response was swift and stern.
At the end of the Cold War, NATO emerged as the unquestioned military superpower. Nobody dared mess with it. It grew ever larger, swallowing all the countries of the former Pact of Warsaw, including some that were part of the Soviet Union itself.
Putin’s folly
All this shows Putin’s folly when he invaded Ukraine. He broke the principles of not invading another country and not changing existing borders. He indirectly challenged NATO.
If Russia didn’t have nuclear weapons, the response of Western countries would have been devastating. But he did have them, so the West had to tip-toe around the possibility of nuclear war to support and arm Ukraine.
As things stand, it is clear in the mind of many Western leaders that Russia must not be allowed to prevail. If the principle of not invading another nation is fragrantly broken, the next thing that will happen is that China will invade Taiwan. All around the world, powerful countries will start invading weaker ones to steal their natural resources.
The international order would crumble. War will become the norm instead of the exception.
Trump’s folly
Trump’s folly is even worse than Putin’s.
Just before being inaugurated as President, Trump repeatedly stated that he wanted to annex Greenland, take possession of the Panama Canal and incorporate Canada in the United States.
The Panama Canal was given to the Panamanian government in 1999, by the Torrijos-Carter Treaties of 1977. Going back on it would bring back tensions between Panama and the USA that existed since even before the opening of the canal in 1914. They culminated in an uprising in January 9, 1963, in which 20 Panamanian students were killed and 500 injured. Since then, January 9 is a national holiday in Panama. Instability in Panama would threaten ship transit through the canal, with dire consequences for international commerce. A significant American military force would need to be based permanently in Panama to avoid these problems. China and many other countries will look with suspicion at the USA controlling the Panama Canal. Nicaragua and Venezuela, who are hostile to the USA, are neighbors of Panama.
But this would be minor compared with the consequences of trying to annex Greenland and Canada. Denmark, who controls Greenland, and Canada are members of NATO, and therefore close allies of the USA. Any military action against either country would go directly against the foundational principle of mutual defense of NATO. Signatories of the North Atlantic Treaty commit themselves to defend any participatory country that is attacked. What happens, then, when a NATO country invades another?
NATO would not be able to survive this flagrant violation of its foundational principle.
The consequences
Of course, Trump already threatened to undermine NATO in his first term. However, that was just a bluff to decrease or withdraw economic support in order to entice other members to increase their military spending. In view of what Russia is doing in Ukraine, that may not have been a bad thing, after all. Germany and other European nations are enlarging their armies in view of the Russian menace.
Attacking other NATO members is an entirely different kettle of fish. Trump is following Putin’s playbook, disregarding the commitment not to invade other countries that is at the core of the Long Peace. If he follows through, then the USA would be no different from Russia. Just another bully of a country, using its military might to rob weaker countries. The response of other NATO members would be to start considering America as a threat. If you add to that Trump’s philosophy of America First in the economic arena, there would be absolutely no advantages for any nation to remain in NATO or to support the goals of the USA.
An European Army?
Perhaps it was long overdue. When the European Union (EU) was established, its defense was delegated to NATO. Never mind that some EU members, like Austria, Ireland and, until recently, Sweden and Finland, were not members of NATO. It was sort of understood that NATO and the American nuclear umbrella protected the entirety of Europe.
If NATO were to be dissolved, the obvious thing to do would be to create an European Army as the military arm of the EU. The increasing aggressiveness of Russia and the new confrontational attitude of Trumpian America makes it not just a necessity, but a priority.
There will be a number of hurdles ahead, though.
What would EU members that are not NATO members (Ireland, Austria) do?
What about NATO members that are not EU members (the UK, Norway, Canada, Iceland, Turkey)?
What should be done with pro-Russian EU members (Hungary, Slovakia)?
France is the only EU member with nuclear weapons. Should they be used to protect the rest of the EU?
Unfortunately, we may see something happening similar to what happened with the euro adoption: some countries will take part in an European Army, while others won’t. But a common army is much more serious than a common currency. Nations that do not participate in the European Army may see it as a threat. Or, at the very least, feel pushed around by not having the same leverage on international relations.
Speaking of which, a common army implies a common foreign policy. Otherwise, it would never be clear who is an enemy and who is a friend. A common army and common foreign policy would require that the EU would become more integrated, acting more like a nation and less like an economic union. The problem is that there is strong popular opposition already to a more integrated EU.
We may expect a lot more strong-arming of politicians like Orban, who befriend the enemy of other EU nations. In turn, these politicians will fear that an European Army may be used against them.
I predict that a disintegration of NATO will cause the richest European countries to develop their own nuclear weapons in record time. After all, they already have the technology. Germany will get nukes. Poland will probably beat Germany to it. Sweden, Finland, Italy and Spain will probably follow suit.
Ultimately, the fundamental problem with creating an European Army is that there is no European government to direct it. The EU has a parliament, but no real governing body. Every decision the EU takes has to be negotiated amongst its 27 members. This is no way to have a common foreign policy, never mind running an army.
However, there is an increasing popular opposition to further developing the EU into a federal or confederal state. European countries have strong national identities. Their citizens are increasingly attached to them, and have failed to develop a common European identity. Perhaps globalization has made them more aware of the fragility of their national cultures.
NATO without the USA?
The problems with creating an European army make the option of maintaining NATO more palatable. NATO has been there for three quarters of a century and has functioned well. Maintaining it does not require opening the can of worms of an European government, or tackle the difficult problem of which countries would join an European army.
However, if the USA starts threatening NATO countries, it cannot be part of NATO.
Who is going to kick the USA out of NATO, then?
It may not be necessary. Next time Trump bluffs about leaving NATO, European nations could just say “go right ahead.” Which may take the form of a carefully orchestrated political crisis that forces Trump to make good on his bluff.
A NATO without the USA would have the additional advantage of keeping Canada in it. Which would be good for the Canadians because it would keep its southern neighbor from crossing its borders.
Lacking the protection of the American nuclear umbrella, Europe would still have to develop nuclear weapons. However, if this is done as a NATO project, it would look much better than if Germany or Poland would develop nuclear weapons on their own.
The international isolation of the USA would follow
There have been talk about a multipolar world. We never thought that Europe would be one of the poles, detached from the interest of the USA.
In the long run, the USA would lose with this arrangement.
Europe would form bonds with Latin-American and Canada, countries with which it has strong linguistic (Spanish, Portuguese, French) and cultural bonds. There is a deep resentment in Latin-America against the USA because of its engineering of coups and support of dictatorships during the 20th century. This will marginalize the USA in its own neighborhood.
Europe is also geographically close to Israel, North Africa and the Middle East. Its policy in these regions may also veer away from American interests.
If Russia is defeated in its war with Ukraine, the EU will promptly absorb Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. In the long run, maybe even Russia itself. Then the USA will face a giant even larger than itself.
There are better alternatives
I am a citizen of both the USA and the EU. I have an American passport and a Spanish passport. I vote in both countries. However, my birth country was not Spain but Italy, where I spent my first five years. I lived in France on two occasions, for a total of a year and a half. Therefore, my identity is pan-European. And also American. I’ll hate it if I had to choose between these two identities, because I love both Europe and America.
I say all this so you understand that I take no pleasure in seeing the United States lose at the international game. My strongest preference would be that the USA and Europe remain united as the bulwark of Western civilization, democratic, secular, scientific and, yes, capitalist.
I don’t want NATO to fall apart. Or to exclude the USA.
So I hope that some adult in the room talks Trump out of starting an expansionist policy that the USA never had.
Comments