The possible victory of Trump-Vance in the November 2024 elections in the US will show the calculation of the country of Europe. With the growing conflicts in the Middle East and the ongoing shift in the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific, Europe must once again face an unpleasant reality: its days at the center of world power are over. In this new globalized world, Europe must learn to adapt to changing US foreign policy priorities. And nowhere is the difference in foreign policy and coalition management more apparent than in the US Republican Party. As election season brings the views of elites into focus, European leaders would do well to study the foreign policy views of three key factions of the Republican Party: international traditionalists, hawkish hardliners, and neo-isolationists.
Although the three Republican parties remain united in preserving American freedom in the international arena, there are subtle differences in how they deal with this issue among European leaders. Two important differences are very important: first, the order of foreign policy priorities, in other words, what their main objectives are, secondly, How they continue to achieve those goals.
First, European policy makers must adapt to the international Republican approach. This group is traditionally pro-access and hospitable to European interests. However, with the Trump-Vance ticket holding the Republican party in its tracks, pro-European Republican elites are beginning to see the need to balance NATO’s burden sharing with Europe. Archetypal Republican internationalist Nikki Haley, admitted at the beginning of February 2024 that although she considers NATO to be the most successful organization in the last 75 years, it is nevertheless “to make NATO pay its fair share”.
Along with many US foreign policy makers, this group sees China as the primary threat to the US and its interests. As a close second, Russia and Iran remain at the forefront of regional strategy. In Europe, the focus of US officials on China is not new, however, with its defense capabilities under scrutiny, the message from the international corner is clear “European partners need to pull their weight because we are strong. together“.
While Republicans overseas may be aware of the need for a more powerful transatlantic partner, European policymakers can take comfort How this group is approaching the management of the coalition. Meanwhile, the internationalists, as their name suggests, are still focused on the globe, determined to maintain Europe’s presence and increase America’s global leadership, including social media. European allies are seen as necessary and worth nurturing over time. Nevertheless, European leaders would be well advised to reiterate why Europe is a good and natural alliance as the first position under any future international administration of the Republic. Failing this, Europe risks further alienating itself from the powerful Republican elite.
Next, Europe must confront the worldview of radical republican activists. This group also includes the likes of former Vice President Mike Pence who is taking on the thinking of former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton and coming out of a sensible, but very tactical approach to foreign affairs and security. The hardliner activist’s foreign policy priorities remain largely in line with their international counterparts: China tops the priority list, while pro-NATO remains staunch. Republicans in this group are more willing to take a tougher approach to China economically. Their hawkish tendency to once again prioritize rogue actors like North Korea or Iran – alongside Russia and China as part of the interconnected threat facing America and its allies is not surprising and nothing new. For hardliners, America’s job now is to fight this new “center of evil” in all theaters – including Ukraine. Their message to Europeans is similar to their international counterparts: “Get your act together now, because we need to work together against common threats”.
However, the way radical activists achieve their goals does not solve European interests. This group is more of a one-sided action than a multi-sided discussion, preferring power through force and red lines rather than self-restraint. However, Europeans can remain grateful for the group’s determination to honor its defense obligations in the form of Article 5 of NATO. However, if Europe wants to show this group means business, current burden-sharing arrangements will need to be reviewed. Under a strong activist administration – Europe will need to take a more assertive stance. In this situation, Europe will need to ‘join’ psychologically and physically ‘the US in the Indo-Pacific, make tough decisions about trade with China, implement strong sanctions on Iran and build defense relations with like-minded governments in the region.
Finally, and perhaps most critically, Europe must confront the neo-isolationists within the Republican Party. Characters like JD Vance and Matt Gaetz tend to have more isolationist foreign policy goals than Trump himself. Vice President-elect JD Vance has repeatedly stated his opposition to US funding for Ukraine, questioning why the weapons could be sent to Taiwan instead. Iran and North Korea follow closely in the order of priorities in this group, while Russia will be the European country’s responsibility for a more cooperative approach to international relations. The message from this group has always been the same: “Get your act together quickly, or else”.
In Europe, the neo-isolationist administration represents a very uncomfortable situation. Neo-isolationists tend to pursue their goals unilaterally, often ignoring traditional alliances. European foreign policy officials, still believing that the shared values that support the transatlantic alliance, will have to turn to a kind of realism while realizing that the broader geostrategic challenges from China are the priority. Because, for the neo-isolationists, the real glue in any future transatlantic relationship is the willingness of Europe to compromise with China and help keep Russia away – even without the direct support of the US. Here, Europe will need to show courage and stand on principles, while also showing that it can support the US in taking a tougher stance in defending Taiwan and being tough on Iran.
All three Republican parties reflect strong economic and security realities in Europe. Economically, Europe should look for higher prices to achieve a trade balance in favor of Washington. In defense, Europe should also expect less US support for Ukraine and more pressure to increase power beyond the 2% of NATO’s GDP benchmark and strike its key deals independently. European leaders would be wise to prepare early, and not bet too much on a Harris-Walz win in November.
Europe has already started its homework, but it is not being done fast enough. Without carefully weighing each of the three GOP parties as potential negotiating partners, Europeans will be left frustrated when it comes time to face tough questions from their transatlantic partner. Europe must be ready to adapt to the changing expectations of all three competing schools of Republican foreign policy or face geostrategic consequences.
Further Studies in E-International Relations
Source link
