Germany set to be more assertive internationally in "Trump era"

Political scientist who studies US-German relations says that a plan to create European army without US participation would give the EU more independence.

By José Tadeu Arantes  |  Agência FAPESP – The impending shakeup in international relations due to Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election will lead to greater independence of the European Union from the US and a more proactive role for Germany, albeit with the discretion that typically characterizes Germany’s moves on the global stage, according to Sebastião Carlos Velasco e Cruz, Full Professor of Political Science & International Relations at the University of Campinas (UNICAMP) in São Paulo State, Brazil.

Velasco e Cruz heads the National Institute of Science & Technology for US Studies (INCT-INEU) as well as a joint program for graduate studies in international relations, run by UNICAMP, São Paulo State University (UNESP) and the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo (PUC-SP).

He spoke to Agência FAPESP about the new international outlook portrayed in his new book, Linhas cruzadas sobre as relações entre os Estados Unidos e a Alemanha (“Crossed lines on US-German relations”), published with FAPESP’s support.

The book is a collection of articles written by Velasco e Cruz while doing research in Germany. It focuses on the unique past and present relationships between Germany and the US and is part of the author’s broader research into US foreign policy.

“In his rhetoric and the statements he’s made about a great many items on the international agenda, Trump presents himself as the opposite of the prevailing consensus among European governments and, in particular, of the German government’s position,” Velasco e Cruz said. “This consensus, I should point out, is under attack from emerging forces in Europe, which have gained ground and are now challenging the parties that have traditionally governed their respective countries. This is happening in France and also in Germany, where the nationalist, populist, xenophobic right is growing at an accelerating pace.”

The governments of Europe’s most important countries openly voiced a preference for Hillary Clinton during the campaign, he went on. When the result was announced, German Chancellor Angela Merkel made Germany’s concerns even clearer by declaring her government’s willingness to collaborate with the US on issues related to the traditional agenda, including human rights, peace, and other issues that Trump had attacked harshly.

According to Velasco e Cruz, there are two particularly sensitive areas in the new international climate. “One is the issue of immigrants and refugees. Trump’s discourse on this is extremely restrictive, especially with regard to Muslim refugees, whereas the German government has adopted the most open and generous position of all European governments. Merkel has been heavily criticized for doing so, outside and especially inside Germany. So on this issue, there’s a very obvious head-on collision,” he said.

“The other issue is NATO, the military alliance established between the US and Western Europe in 1949. NATO now has 28 member countries, and several were formerly part of the Soviet bloc. It’s not so much a matter of Trump’s attitude toward NATO, but his demand that European members boost their defense spending. This was something he regularly stressed during his campaign, suggesting the US was giving a free ride to countries that can afford to defend themselves but don’t want to because they would rather shelter under the US security umbrella.”

The divergence on this latter issue becomes even more evident, he added, when we consider the internal European debate about whether and how far to advance a European defense project that would coexist with NATO but would not be subordinate to it. “An important step was taken recently with the announcement of a European Defense Fund to implement the European Defense Action Plan, calling for the creation of a European army without US participation. Germany is spearheading this project,” Velasco e Cruz said.

“However, as much as the Europeans say the creation of this force, with the capacity to intervene in crisis situations, goes not against, but in favor of, NATO, a choice will have to be made between one and the other when the time comes to allocate funds. Where will countries with a limited defense budget put their money? Will they strengthen an already weakened NATO, or will they set up an army of their own to give Europe much greater capacity for independent action? The US has criticized what it sees as Europe’s lack of commitment to NATO for a long time, but Trump’s campaign voiced this criticism far more emphatically.”

Another source of conflict, Velasco e Cruz added, is the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (TTIP), which has been under discussion since 2013 and appears set to be aborted by Trump’s administration.

The upshot of all this, in his view, is that Germany is more likely than ever to take a leading role in the EU. “The new state of affairs has apparently accentuated the tendencies I point out in the last two chapters of the book. Germany’s position will tend to become stronger, not because of actions taken by Germany itself, but as a consequence of the changes that are taking place in the global system,” he said.

“Although Europe as a whole is being split apart by those same changes, it’s clear that Europe’s presence and independence on the world stage are set to increase. The UK’s decision to leave weakens the European Union but imposes a need for more cohesion among the remaining countries – and indeed makes that cohesion possible because the UK has always been strongly aligned with the US and wielded a power of veto in the EU.”

Post-war inheritance

Velasco e Cruz said that he had not produced an exhaustive study, “not least because that wouldn’t be the point of a collection of articles.” Even so, the book goes back to the eighteenth century in search of the roots of the two countries’ unique relationship. However, the main emphasis is on the reconstruction of Germany after World War II, the position taken by the Federal Republic (West Germany) during the Cold War, and the reconfiguration of Germany’s presence after the collapse of the Soviet bloc and reunification.

“The first point to make is that after World War II, Germany as a state was practically dissolved, as the country was divided and occupied. The reconstruction of Germany and the writing of the Federal Republic’s Constitution took place under US supervision and tutelage. In the Americans’ strategic plan, rebuilding German industry was a crucial element in the creation of a system designed to contain the Soviet bloc,” he said.

Another point is that Germany could not be rebuilt as a nation without exorcising the ghosts of a terrible past, its inheritance of Nazi terror and its share of responsibility for two world wars. “As part of the reconstruction process, Germany rejected this past and sought to affirm internationally an identity that was diametrically opposed to the militarism, racism, xenophobia and antisemitism so characteristic of its recent history,” he said.

These two elements – the US as the guarantor of a new Germany and the new Germany as a democratic and civilian state – led West Germans to transform the defeat, division and occupation of their country into a driving force instead of a limitation. In this spirit, West Germany engineered a rapprochement with France in a project that resulted in the European Union, which was grounded in the Franco-German alliance from its inception. “Despite greater independence from the US – more explicit in the case of France, more surreptitious in that of Germany – the Americans supported the European project because they saw it as a potential obstacle to the spread of Soviet influence,” Velasco e Cruz noted.

When the Cold War ended with the dissolution of the Soviet bloc and German reunification, Germany’s diplomacy endeavored for a long time not to distance itself from the US but to more strongly affirm its own personality, as befitted a country that had become the de facto leader of the European project by dint of its economic power.

“In the 1990s and early 2000s, the widely prevailing view was that the world had moved from a bipolar system to a unipolar system, in which tensions and conflicts would continue to exist, but in the context of a new world order established and guaranteed by the US. To a certain extent, this hegemony was hampered by the European integration project, monetary union, and the plan to advance to a common foreign policy and defense system,” he said.

“This setup was badly shaken by the US military disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the 2008 financial crisis. The equation became far more complex with the ascent of China and the restructuring of Russia, which was economically fragile yet still retained impressive military capacity. Trump’s election introduces yet another variable. The global outcome is unforeseeable, but in the more restricted sphere of German foreign policy, it would not be amiss to predict a significant increase in proactivity and assertiveness,” Velasco e Cruz concluded.

Linhas cruzadas sobre as relações entre os Estados Unidos e a Alemanha, in Portuguese (“Crossed lines on US-German relations”)
Author: Sebastião Carlos Velasco e Cruz
Publisher: Editora Unesp
Year: 2016
Pages: 116
Price: R$32.00

More information: editoraunesp.com.br/catalogo/9788539306374,linhas-cruzadas-sobre-as-relacoes-entre-os-estados-unidos-e-a-alemanha