By R.W. JOHNSON
The heartfelt cry by the EU vice-president, Kaja Kallas, that a new leader of the Free World was needed expresses the bitterness and despair of many Europeans as they witnessed President Trump’s embrace of Vladimir Putin and his deliberate humiliation of Volodymyr Zelensky. No doubt her feelings are particularly anguished because she is a former Estonian prime minister and the Baltic nations are both the most vulnerable and have placed almost all their hopes of security in their memberships of the EU, NATO and the Free World.
But the question is, of course, whether the Free World can still be said to exist if the US abandons its leadership role. For it seems clear that, with the advent of the Trump administration, this has indeed occurred. With Trump, it’s America First, America Alone and everything is transactional, which in turn means that no written agreement or treaty is worth the paper it’s written on.
The classic case is NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which united the US, Canada and Mexico into a multi-trillion dollar market. During his first presidential term Trump made it clear he didn’t like NAFTA, so it was elaborately re-negotiated, and in July 2020 became USMCA – the US-Canada-Mexico Agreement. Now, at the outset of his second term, Trump has slapped 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada, thus destroying the free trade deal. Similarly, he has made it clear that he doesn’t feel bound by the terms of the NATO treaty. His attitude is that of a mafia boss: you only get protection if you pay for it – and even then, in a crunch you’re dispensable.
The result for Europeans – and others – is what Emmanuel Macron has called an ‘electro-shock’. Any reliance on America is conditional and uncertain and, as Trump publicly demonstrated with Zelensky, he has no hesitation in throwing any of his vassals to the wolves. So everyone must plan for a future of self-sufficiency, or at least look around for new alliances. Of course, Trump may be replaced by a more congenial president in four years’ time, but four years is a long time, and after Trump, any reliance on the US will be more trepidatious and uncertain.
Of course, most of the Free World still exists: the EU, the UK, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. In addition, most Asian countries — India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Singapore and Bangladesh – have opted for versions of the Western democratic model, and may conceivably side with a democratic camp in future. A glance at that list shows that the heart of the matter is the EU plus the Anglosphere (minus the US).
Kallas clearly assumes that the Free World will go on even without American leadership. This is doubtlessly right – none of these countries will want to give up on being capitalist liberal democracies. And there will be the same assumptions of free movement within that world, and a sense of kinship with others who share the same fundamental values.
It will be hard for those who wish to continue the notion of a Free World not to be haunted by the sense of a Lost Golden Age, 1945-2024. There will be fond memories of FDR, Eisenhower, JFK and Ronald Reagan, of that long era in which every American president in turn, regardless of party, gloried in the title of Leader of the Free World. And there will be at least occasional hopes that that world may return, for there is no doubt that many Americans too will be nostalgic for that world.
In that sense, the situation rather resembles the fall of the Roman Empire. Although in many parts of the empire there were still resentments against the Roman conquest which had brought them within the Empire, overwhelmingly the Gauls, Britons and other Roman subjects were gratefully aware of the benefits of Roman civilisation, the Pax Romana, and the sheer stability and prosperity that Roman rule had provided. Moreover, they were only too aware of the Vikings, the Visigoths and other barbarian tribes waiting to pounce once the Roman legions had left.
Today, of course, the Europeans fear that once the American military leave, the Russians will wreak the same terror as the barbarians of old. So great was the prestige of Rome that it entered into legend: the story of King Arthur is of a nobleman of Christian values fighting to maintain a Pax Romana against a Hobbesian surrounding world of robber barons and rogue knights. And for hundreds of years kings sought to position themselves as the heirs of Rome, none more successfully than Charlemagne. But although Europeans dreamt of a return to the Pax Romana, it never happened. True, Byzantium maintained the eastern Roman Empire until it fell in 1453 – and even then Muscovy claimed it was ‘the third Rome – and there will never be a fourth one’. So, for more than a thousand years after the fall of Rome, its glory lived on in legend.
As one looks back, one can see that the American epoch peaked with what the French call les trente glorieuses – the wonderful years of rapid growth between 1945 and 1973. After the oil crisis, things were never the same – but then came the miraculous false dawn of 1989-91 when the Communist world collapsed and European democracy expanded to Warsaw and beyond. But the astonishingly rapid growth of China meant that America’s reign as the sole superpower was brief, and Putin’s emergence in Russia meant that a furious attempt to rebuild the fallen Russian empire would menace Europe again.
To be fair, many American presidents have warned Europe that it must do more to defend itself, and these warnings were ignored. Instead, European governments cut defence spending and poured what was saved into what are now clearly unsustainable welfare benefits. Macron’s struggle to prevent over-generous French pensions from bankrupting France are now likely to be emulated Europe-wide. In Britain, for example, it is hard to see how the famous ‘triple lock’ on pensions (guaranteeing that they will increase faster than inflation) can be maintained.
But to return to Kallas’s question, who will lead the Free World now? Thus far it is Britain and France who have made the running in Europe – the two nuclear powers, but it is essential that they either have German backing or that Germany becomes part of a troika. It is, though, interesting to look at the 14 countries that attended Starmer’s London meeting.
Spain and Italy, though large countries, have both made it clear that they will not be able to play any role, not even providing peacekeepers. This is rather shameful when one considers that even Australia has said it would consider providing peacekeeper forces.
Turkey has one of the strongest militaries in Europe, and it’s possible that Russia would find peacekeepers from Turkey more acceptable than from some other states. But the EU would be nervous that reliance on Turkey might be used as leverage to gain Turkish entry to the EU.
The three Baltic states felt they should also have been invited to the London meeting, but they are small and militarily weak.
The Scandinavian states were all represented. Though small, they are quite formidable, and will be an important part of any European consortium. It is noteworthy that the Baltics and all the Scandinavians are partners in the UK-led Joint Expeditionary Force which focuses on rapid response operations in Northern Europe.
Poland might also join any leadership group. Its geographical position, growing economic strength and increasingly formidable military all make it important, and it is a country of 37 million people. But Poland won’t provide a peace-keeping force. It is extremely alarmed about the possibility of a Russian invasion, and wants to keep its entire army for domestic defence.
//////////
Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand are in a different situation because the rationale behind Trump’s abandonment of Europe is that the US must concentrate on the contest with China in the Indo-Pacific. There is a clear American interest in building a coalition of partners in that region, including India as well as the countries above. But even so, there is considerable nervousness that Trump might ditch Taiwan in a deal with Xi, and that in general Trump doesn’t regard himself as bound by any treaties he may sign. It will not have escaped Australian notice that Starmer had to remind Trump of the existence of AUKUS – the Australia-UK-US defence treaty which is now the linchpin of Australia’s foreign and defence policy. (Even after Starmer mentioned AUKUS to Trump, he had to remind him what the letters stood for.)
Immediately, AUKUS will deliver (British-made) nuclear submarines to Australia, but there is also provision for wide co-operation in military technology, cyber defence etc. Australia itself will now manufacture advanced missiles and other sophisticated military hardware.
//////////
It may seem anomalous that Canada was present at the London meeting among an otherwise entirely European group. To some extent this was a reflection of Canadian estrangement from Trump’s America which is pressuring Canada to become its 51st state. (It doesn’t seem to have occurred to Trump that Canada is far larger than the US and, should incorporation take place, would surely have to constitute at least five or six states – all of which would be likely to vote Democrat.)
In fact, Canada is also a Pacific power as well as an Arctic Power – but it is pulled in many directions. Its bilingual French and English language policy gives it a natural kinship with Europe. But it is also strongly affected by Ukraine. Even before the Ukraine war, there were more than 1.25 million Ukrainians in Canada, and another 210 000 have arrived since. They are a potent factor in Canadian politics.
//////////
Of course, none of these countries can replace superpower America as the leader of the Free World, and all of them will want America to continue in at least a backstop role. But there will be pressure for them to form some sort of formal association to bolster their international presence. Some Europeans speak as if this was matter purely for Europe – but already the UK is playing a leadership role, though not an EU member, and clearly the more such a grouping can be afforded by the likes of Australia, Canada, Japan and South Korea, the more formidable it would be.
Moreover, the new multi-polar world could easily degenerate into a rule by two or three major international bullies on a might-is-right basis. That is what it looks like right now. China bullies Taiwan, the Philippines and other neighbours in the South China Sea; Trump bullies Mexico, Panama and Denmark and demands Canada to bend the knee; and Putin bullies Ukraine, openly declares that he wants the Baltic states back as part of Russia, and wants a sphere of influence across the whole of Eastern Europe.
Almost all lesser countries that are not superpowers have reason to be frightened of this alarming new world, and banding together in large coalitions will be their best defence. Countries like South Africa who have been cheering on the arrival of a multipolar world will find that they have been welcoming a nightmare. While America was willing to play a leadership role, there was no need for any formal association of free countries, but we are now in a future where new forms, new ideas and perhaps even new leaders will be needed.
FEATURED IMAGE: A Times Radio item on Youtube.