José Antonio Gurpegui
Director of the Franklin Institute-UAH
What happened in the Oval Office last Friday will go down in the annals of diplomatic history as one of the most grotesque episodes in international relations. The first question has to do with the eventuality or intentionality of what happened. I am particularly inclined towards the latter and consider the whole thing to have been an orchestrated farce, from Trump’s ‘little joke’ when receiving Zelenski, referring to the ‘elegance’ of his attire, to the intemperate invitation to leave the White House. A friendly journalist spontaneously intervening without being at the press conference, the vice president taking the floor without asking permission or being asked by the president, Trump’s final reference to the television spectacle of the incident, and the refusal to sign an agreement reached when the Ukrainian delegation was trying to get the meeting back on track behind the scenes, all give me pause for thought.
David Lammy, the British foreign secretary, was blunt in stating last month that ‘the post-Cold War peace is definitely over’ and in the light of events the US president thinks so too. The war in Ukraine goes beyond being a mere framework for war operations to concern a new world order in which situations such as the recent UN vote when the US aligned itself with Russia and North Korea could become commonplace.
Zelenski’s naivety in bluntly rejecting a ceasefire – a prior step in any peace negotiation – or questioning the diplomatic track – ‘What kind of diplomacy?’ he asked with unwelcome candour – offered on a plate the opportunity Trump was waiting for to portray himself to his voters as a global peacemaker. It also served him to flirt with Russia by casting doubt on Zelenski’s ability and willingness as a negotiator. Finally, he clearly distanced himself from those who have been his historic allies by setting himself up as a champion of peace, occupying an equidistant position between the contenders.
This is not the first time, and I fear not the last, that Trump has more or less implicitly shown his scepticism about NATO’s role in the new world order he intends to promote. It is not clear to me whether he disputes its very existence, but he does question the need for the United States to remain a member of the treaty, as Elon Musk is already unabashedly stating. Threatening to unprotect partners who are not aware of the payments, hinting that it might invade Greenland, which belongs to one of the partners, are not just empty bluster.
US interference in European elections, most recently in Germany, was the prelude to Vice President Vance’s unprecedented intervention at the recent Munich Security Conference. European leaders listened unblinkingly to phrases such as ‘The threat that worries me most about Europe is not Russia, it’s not China. … What worries me is the threat from within…’. As EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas put it, ‘It looks like they [the US] are trying to start a fight’.
Europe has reacted to the new situation as it always does, by convening urgent meetings where much is said but no agreement is reached. Keir Starmer, taking care not to upset Trump, said after the meeting he convened that ‘This is not a time for more words. It is time for action’. Act, yes, but act together to be successful; something that unfortunately is far from being achieved. As I understand it, a commission will be set up to offer a peace solution that satisfies the United States. Hopefully it will work and be the exception to the Napoleonic – and according to others, Peronist – maxim: ‘If you want a problem to last, appoint a commission’.
Europe has remained dormant since Obama shifted attention from the Atlantic axis to the Asia-Pacific area. We have behaved with the indolence of the aristocrat in decline and blind to the new global reality, delegating our defence to others. Eight years ago we put our money on candidate Clinton, three months ago on Kamala Harris. We can bet on a change of political trend in the US Congress in two years’ time in the illusion that the waters will return to their course, but we could well be wrong again. How long will it take for us to wake up?
© Instituto Franklin-UAH / All rights reserved
