It has become repetitive: with every American election, Europeans from all political backgrounds, whether or not they hold political or economic responsibilities, find themselves in a state of anxious anticipation over the results.

Following the announcement of Trump’s victory, confusion sets in, accompanied by a sort of paralysis in the face of uncertainty about what actions to take. Trump remains the great villain for Europe, while its security continues to rely heavily on the United States.

When confronted with Politico’s headline “Europe’s Trumpian Nightmare” and the added distress of statements like “A Trump win would send a tsunami of panic,” it’s essential to ground ourselves in rationality. Instead of succumbing to self-inflicted anxiety, we must seek a sustainable way forward. My proposal for healing this recurring crisis of anxiety and despair is detailed below.

Europe should declare independence from U.S. tutelage

Europe, with its long history of power and dominion in navigation, discoveries, conquests, Enlightenment, and industrial revolution, now acts like an old, retired lady in need of protection, unsure of how to defend herself.

Paradoxically, the closer Europe aligns with the U.S., the deeper its existential crisis becomes, leaving the core issue unresolved. Some tend to blame Trump as if he alone dictates Europe’s fate. In my view, it’s time for Europe to tackle this situation with an independent strategy, rather than relying on the U.S. for safety and flourishing its economy because that will not happen.

Europe, through the European Union (EU), should consider carefully the words of one of America’s foremost strategists, Henry Kissinger: “Being an enemy of the U.S. is dangerous, but being a friend is fatal.” This statement highlights an uncomfortable truth Europe seems unwilling to acknowledge: the U.S. is not a reliable partner, a fact the Global South has long realised.

The U.S. interests always come first

The United States has repeatedly demonstrated that it prioritises its own interests over international commitments, casting doubt on its reliability as a partner. Over the years, several significant withdrawals from treaties and agreements highlight this pattern:

ABM Treaty (2001): Under President George W. Bush, the U.S. withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, originally signed with the Soviet Union in 1972. This treaty was aimed at limiting missile defence systems.

Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty (2019): The U.S. exited this treaty, which was signed in 1987 to eliminate intermediate-range nuclear missiles, further signalling a shift from long-standing agreements.

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) (2018): The U.S. exited the nuclear deal with Iran, demonstrating a willingness to abandon diplomatic agreements with critical implications for global security.

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) (1996): Before these withdrawals, in 1996, the U.S. chose not to ratify this treaty, which aims to ban all nuclear explosions, reflecting a reluctance to commit to nuclear disarmament.

Open Skies Treaty (2020): The U.S. announced its withdrawal from this treaty, which facilitated unarmed aerial surveillance flights over member countries to build trust and transparency.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP): Negotiations for this major trade agreement between the U.S. and the EU were effectively stalled and did not progress, further indicating a lack of commitment to transatlantic cooperation.

Kyoto Protocol (2001): The U.S. rejected the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, illustrating a reluctance to address climate change.

Paris Agreement (2015): The U.S. withdrew from this landmark climate accord, only to rejoin it in 2021, showcasing a fluctuating commitment to global environmental efforts.

International Criminal Court (ICC) (2002): The U.S. formally opposed the ICC and enacted the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, which aimed to limit or prohibit the court’s jurisdiction over American personnel, even those who commit war crimes.

Through these actions, the U.S. has repeatedly undermined its credibility as a reliable partner on the global stage, leaving allies to question the sustainability of its commitments. Further, the U.S. has also weakened and weaponised the institutions it helped create, favouring American profits at Europe’s expense.

An imperial behaviour that hurts Europe

The imperial American behaviour is evident in their more than 800 military bases around Europe and the world, as well as through unilateral sanctions (thus illegal), the weaponisation of the dollar and the reserves of sovereign countries in dollars, and the extraterritorial reach of their laws, which have disadvantaged EU firms to the benefit of U.S. business interests.

When American business interests are threatened, the U.S. legal machinery springs into action. The External Intelligence Advisory Council recommended as early as 1970 that “from now on, commercial espionage be considered a function of national security, enjoying a priority equivalent to that of diplomatic, military, and technological espionage.”

Former CIA Director James Wooley confirmed in an interview with Le Figaro, a French newspaper, on March 28, 2000, that the U.S. has been secretly collecting information on European companies. He argued that it was completely justifiable to prosecute companies that do not comply with their rules. According to Frédéric Pierucci, a victim of this system and the author of “The American Trap,” this tactic allows the U.S. to weaken, eliminate, or even absorb its main competitors.

Within this framework, several European companies have fallen victim to American extraterritoriality, paying huge fines to the U.S. Treasury. Notably, the Germans include Siemens ($800 million) and Daimler ($185 million). The French companies are Total ($395 million), Technip ($338 million), Alcatel ($138 million), Société Générale ($293 million), and BNP Paribas ($8.9 billion) as well as Alstom ($772 million). The Italians include Snamprogetti ($365 million). The Swiss company Panalpina was fined $237 million, and the British firm BAE Systems faced a penalty of $400 million, just to name a few cases. However, American companies are rarely prosecuted or face only mild penalties for committing the same ‘crimes.’

In conclusion

The icing on the cake regarding U.S. malfeasance toward Europe has been the provocation of the war in Ukraine through the support of the colour revolution in 2013-2014, NATO’s enlargement and the disregard for Russia’s security demands, despite opposition from the main European countries. Furthermore, the explosion of the Nord Stream, attributed to U.S. actions, has had a devastating impact on European deindustrialisation and impoverishment, particularly in Germany.

When it comes to the outcomes of the U.S. elections, the results are less significant, in this case, Trump’s victory. What truly matters is that Europe must take its future seriously and exert greater control over its destiny by bringing its strategic autonomy back to the agenda.

Trump has won the election, Europe might ultimately emerge stronger – since he instils more fear – and more acutely aware of its limitations and the threats it faces, particularly from the U.S. These threats, in fact, represent some of the greatest challenges Europe must confront if it does not wish to become merely an open-air museum in the future, relying solely on services and tourism.

Ricardo Martins ? PhD in Sociology, specializing in policies, European and world politics and geopolitics, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.” Courtesy

https://journal-neo.su/2024/11/10/american-elections-trump-has-won-and-a-new-despair-sets-in-across-europe/