© REUTERS/Carlos Barria

The European Union usually plays only a subordinate role in the American debates on Europe. But recently, interest in the European Parliament elections has picked up markedly—focused mainly on the current upswing, real or imagined, of conservative or far right populist parties. And there is certainly someone who would welcome a strong result for these nationalist forces: US President Donald Trump.

After a troubled decade most US observers see the EU as a weakened organization. This perceived weakness hasn’t softened Trump’s ire, however. While frequently criticizing those governments that support further European integration, Trump lavishes attention on the nationalist governments in Warsaw and Budapest. Following Trump’s speech in Poland in 2017, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited Budapest and Warsaw this February; a Berlin visit, planned for earlier this months, was canceled on short notice. And last week, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was a guest at the White House, allowing Trump to clearly indicate which political forces he is routing for in the European elections.

Prior to the Trump-Orbán meeting, both Republican and Democrat senators had called on the US president to address the Orbán government’s increasingly repressive actions against civil society and independent media organizations in Hungary. Instead, Trump praised Orbán (“respected all over Europe”) for his stance on immigration and that he had been “great with respect to Christian communities.” In other words, the president sided clearly with Europe’s nationalist, euroskeptic, and anti-liberal forces. For Orbán, whose Fidesz party has been suspended from the center-right EPP parliamentary group and whose government is in dispute with the EU, Trump’s support could not have come at a more favorable time.

Good and Bad Allies

Trump’s EU-critical stance has been reinforced by his National Security Advisor John Bolton, who openly opposes the supranational EU and sees in it an anti-American organization that deprives its member states of their national sovereignty. Like Trump, Bolton supports Brexit and has promised the United Kingdom special trade relations with the US after it leaves the EU. In addition, the Trump administration—similar to some members of the government of George W. Bush—seems to distinguish between EU members that are considered good and those that are considered bad partners for the US. The present aversion against the EU was also at play in the small, but symbolic step taken by the State Department at the end of 2018 to downgrade the diplomatic status of the EU delegation in Washington, DC. (It reversed the decision after protests.)

Meanwhile, similar to politics, the US news media, conservative and liberal, is particularly interested in the surge of the right-wing populists and nationalists in Europe. Fox News, whose commentators often share Trump’s EU-critical stance, argued that the election could become a tipping point in post-war European politics. Others zoomed in on the strong poll ratings for the Brexit Party in the UK and Nigel Farage’s announcement that his fight against the “globalist project that seeks to replace national democracies with unelected bureaucracies” would be continued after the election.

Breitbart News, the website once run by the one-time White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, also mostly focused on the UK campaign, reporting on Tony Blair’s “desperate” calls on the British not to vote for the Brexit Party. It also pointed to strong poll results for the French Rassemblement National and on Marine Le Pen’s call on Macron to step down if his party La République en Marche won’t come top in France in the European elections.

The Washington Post focused on the strength of Farage, Le Pen, and Italian deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini, but also reported on the difficulties the latter had to bring together all right-wing populist parties. The populist parties can only agree on a few topics beyond advocating for strong national borders, rejecting immigration, and combating Islamic terrorism, The Atlantic concludes.

A Trump-like Triumph?

The great interest among US observers in the right-wing populist movements can be partly explained by the fact that many see parallels to the developments in the US, and some wonder whether nationalist politics will continue to gain ground. Polls across Europe showed that “the forces that fueled President Trump’s rise are gaining, not losing, strength,” argued the conservative Washington Post columnist Henry Olsen. Since Trumpism would outlast Trump, the mainstream parties would need to adapt and offer real, effective responses to drive down populist discontent, Olsen wrote.

With Bannon eager to pave the way for a global revolution, US observers have also shown much interest in his efforts to bring together the right-wing populist parties in Europe. However, Bannon has been largely unsuccessful so far, as far-right leaders like Le Pen have rejected his advice, pointing to Bannon’s lack of understanding Europe, The New Yorker reported.

This may make gratifying reading for Bannon’s critics. But the queasy feeling that European right-wing populists could achieve a surprise success next Sunday remains—just like Donald Trump did it in 2016.

The post Focused on the Far Right appeared first on Berlin Policy Journal - Blog.

© REUTERS/Murad Sezer

The brutal murder of dissident Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Istanbul consulate has prompted swift condemnation around the world, but the West’s political response has been mixed so far. For example, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has suspended arms exports to Saudi Arabia, while French President Emmanuel Macron has remained non-committal and has decried immediate arms embargoes as “demagoguery.” US President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has been taking a “wait and see” approach, and that has frustrated many in the United States, including Republican senators.

Despite the polarized political atmosphere in the run-up to the midterm elections, there has been surprisingly strong bipartisan agreement that Washington should take a tough stance on Riyadh. And expectations are that Congress will continue to put pressure on the Trump administration. Indeed, if congressional leaders decided to block American weapons sales and military aid to Riyadh, this could fundamentally alter the US-Saudi relationship.

In the past weeks, President Trump has been reluctant to come down hard on the Saudis. Early on, it became clear that his main concern is preserving “his” $110 billion arms deal (in fact, negotiations started under President Barack Obama), arguing that halting the deal could risk other Saudi non-military investments in the US worth $450 billion and endanger a million American jobs (the numbers are exaggerated).

Trump’s advisers have pointed out that the US-Saudi relationship is too important, both commercially and strategically, to be damaged because of the death of a journalist. Indeed, the Trump administration considers Saudi Arabia–next to Israel–its key ally in the Middle East and an important partner to curb Iran’s influence in the region. However, Trump made a drastic shift last week when he said that “the cover-up [of Khashoggi’s murder] was the worst in the history of cover-ups.” It’s questionable, however, whether the White House is willing to take rigorous measures to punish Saudi Arabia’s leadership.

Senators on both sides of the aisle, however, don’t want to sit on their hands. They were suspicious of the Saudi explanations for Khashoggi’s disappearance from the start. One of the most vocal Republican senators has been Lindsey Graham, a Trump ally, who urged the administration to “sanction the hell” out of Saudi Arabia. Republican Senator Rand Paul, who has supported Trump on many issues, even argued in favor of cancelling the arms deal. To urge Trump to take the allegations against Riyadh seriously, 22 senators from both parties wrote a letter calling upon the administration to launch a government investigation into the Khashoggi murder, which could trigger US sanctions against Saudi individuals.

Congress Is Watching

There are several reasons for the senators’ strong reaction. First, the fact that Khashoggi was a US resident and a contributor to The Washington Post certainly helped to bring his murder to congressional attention–in contrast to the many other human rights violations occurring in Saudi Arabia. Second, the case enabled senators to demonstrate that Congress is an independent branch of government that has the power to challenge Trump’s positions. Senators feared that the Trump administration might get “back to business” with Riyadh once the case had dropped off the political agenda. The senators wanted to show that Congress will speak out against human rights violations even when the administration is unwilling to do so. Third, most of the Republican senators who signed the request do not seek re-election in the upcoming midterms and are thus under no pressure to align with Trump’s position. Finally, some lawmakers may well fear a debate about Saudi influence campaigns in Washington that also addressed congressmen–a debate that has started already.

When it became clear last week that the Trump administration had to more resolutely condemn the murder, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced sanctions on those individuals found responsible. But Pompeo also stressed that America’s “shared strategic interest with Saudi Arabia will remain.” Therefore, it seems unlikely that the administration will take more drastic steps, such as cutting US military aid. Still, on Wednesday Pompeo called on the Saudi leadership to negotiate a ceasefire in war-torn Yemen.

If the Democrats win back the House of Representatives (not an unlikely scenario), they will likely push the administration to harden their line further still and may even derail Trump’s Middle East policy. For example, the House Foreign Affairs Committee has the power to stop foreign arms sales. However, congressmen from both parties will also fear repercussions for the US defense industry, which maintains a strong lobby on Capitol Hill and employs many Americans. A complete overhaul of US-Saudi defense cooperation is therefore unrealistic, and expectations that the Khashoggi murder will fundamentally alter US-Saudi relations premature at best.

Meanwhile, European governments and lawmakers will pay close attention to the US response. The situation in Europe is similar: while members of the European Parliament and national parliamentarians have requested a Europe-wide arms embargo against Saudi Arabia, several heads of government are reluctant to take such a fundamental step, including Macron. If the Trump administration ends up letting off Riyadh lightly, some European governments might follow suit.

But Europe should be brave. Taking a principled stand in response to the Khashoggi murder is a chance to show that–in contrast to Donald Trump’s foreign policy–the Europeans are willing to speak out clearly against human rights violations and take rigorous measures, even at the expense of economic benefits.

The post Not Getting Away With Murder appeared first on Berlin Policy Journal - Blog.

© REUTERS/Jim Young

Foreign policy issues usually play a subordinate role in the US primaries, and in 2016, topics like immigration, criminal justice, terrorism, income distribution, education, climate change, and health care have so far dominated the debates between the candidates. But the nearer the Democratic and Republican National Conventions draw, the more the would-be presidential candidates are scrutinized for their foreign policy expertise – or lack thereof.

Hillary Clinton is often regarded as the presidential candidate with the most foreign policy experience. She can easily comment on policy issues in the Middle East, East Asia, or Europe like no other candidate, and as former Secretary of State she maintains extensive networks in Washington institutions and think tanks. She recently used this home-field advantage to expose the lack of support among foreign policy experts for her Democratic rival, self-declared “democratic socialist” Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. But to what extent would such an approach help Clinton in a direct contest with Donald Trump? Recently, Trump was sharply criticized by Republican foreign policy experts – but it has yet to have a harmful effect on his campaign.

Opposition to the Iraq War

For some time now, it has seemed that Clinton’s foreign policy expertise would not be an advantage to her candidacy. In fact, Sanders regularly criticizes her for supporting the Iraq invasion during her time as senator. Having voted against the war himself, Sanders argues that, in contrast to Clinton, he “got it right” when it came to the most important foreign policy issue of our time. In addition, Sanders regularly calls attention to Clinton’s role in the Libya intervention, which is widely held as one of the great missteps of the Obama Administration.

Sanders thus presents himself as the candidate who has always shown proper judgment on crucial foreign policy issues – the candidate who will eschew foreign policy entanglements with uncertain outcomes if elected president. Indeed, there are significant foreign policy differences between the Democratic candidates. While Clinton argues for a more pro-active US role in Syria – by establishing no-fly zones, for example – Sanders advocates more restraint in the use of American force. And while it is unlikely that Clinton will shrink the US military, Sanders advocates further cuts in defense spending in favor of “nation-building at home.”

However, when Sanders demanded that “we move as aggressively as we can to normalize relations with Iran” and advocated cooperation with Tehran, Riyadh, and Moscow in the fight against the so-called Islamic State, foreign policy experts close to Clinton questioned Sanders’ qualifications for the position of commander-in-chief. In an open letter, they warned that Sanders would jeopardize national security, while Clinton herself added that “there really isn’t any kind of foreign policy network that is supporting and advising Senator Sanders.” Indeed, as Politico pointed out, until recently Sanders has been unable to win over influential foreign policy experts for his team. And the closer Clinton comes to the nomination, the less inclined experts are to openly side with Sanders.

“Wildly Inconsistent”

On the Republican side, frontrunner Donald Trump often refers to his good judgment and confidently claims that he has a better understanding of foreign policy than his competitors. As part of this approach, he recently claimed to have vehemently criticized the invasion of Iraq in 2003 – though the accuracy of this claim is questionable. Trump advocates a more isolationist foreign policy, opposes free trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP), and demands compensation from allies like Japan and South Korea for US security guarantees. Aside from a former intelligence chief, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, who argues in favor of close cooperation with Russia, Trump noticeably lacks prominent foreign policy advisors. Among his supporters, Trump’s “unorthodox” ideas – including his trademark policy of building a wall along the US-Mexican border and making “the Mexicans pay for it” – reinforce the impression that the real estate tycoon openly challenges the mindset of the Republican establishment.

In early March, more than a hundred conservative foreign policy experts signed their names to an open letter warning against a Trump nomination. Trump’s foreign policy vision, they claim, is “wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle,” and his advocacy for trade wars is “a recipe for economic disaster.” International conflicts can not be resolved “as a real estate deal might,” the letter taunted. In addition, former CIA Director Michael Hayden warned that it is unlikely that US commanders would follow Trump’s orders should he try to implement his ideas on torturing terror suspects or killing their next-of-kin – practices that are clearly in violation of international law. So intense is the dislike of the Republican frontrunner in some branches of his own party that a number of conservatives have already stated that they would rather vote for Clinton. It remains to be seen if this harsh criticism could help stop Trump’s triumph.

An Unpleasant Rival

In a contest between Trump and Clinton, foreign policy is likely to become a fascinating subject, fed by the candidates’ mutually exclusive visions. Clinton asserts that Trump would pose a real threat to national security. “Our commander-in-chief has to be able to defend our country, not embarrass it,” Clinton told followers on March 15. “When he embraces torture, that doesn’t make him strong, it makes him wrong.” The risk is that Trump will continue to frame himself as the anti-establishment candidate who, unlike Clinton, deliberately ignores Washington elites and their alleged “expertise.” If he succeeds in doing so, Trump will pose more of a threat to the Clinton campaign than Bernie Sanders ever did.

The post No Trump Card appeared first on Berlin Policy Journal - Blog.