The liberal order led by the U.S. favored an open world connected by the free flow of people, goods, ideas and capital, a world grounded in the principles of self-determination and sovereignty for nations and basic rights for their citizens….The postwar order that America built now is facing acute challenges, including from old competitors.
“VOA will present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, and will also present responsible discussion and opinion on these policies.” — VOA Charter
Seen through the eyes of a European, it has been more than interesting. It has been, in turn, riveting, appalling, and at times frightening. Assumptions we have long taken for granted, assumptions central to the foundations of the U.S.-European alliance, have suddenly become open for discussion.
The “leave” campaign won the referendum on withdrawing Britain from the European Union because the arguments on which the “remain” side relied made leave’s case. The remain campaign began with a sham, was monomaniacal with its Project Fear and ended in governmental thuggishness.
“Remain” or “Leave.”
That is the choice for British voters Thursday in a referendum on the European Union.
Ripples from vote’s impact will be felt for years to come. If Britain pulls out, trade and financial agreements will have to be rewritten. Social compacts will be revisited. If Britain stays in, the restiveness will not abate. Irritation about being subjected to policies from Brussels will only grow. Thursday’s murder of Jo Cox, a pro-“remain” member of parliament, put a quiver in the British stiff upper lip.
Two months ago in London, President Barack Obama said the U.K. “is at its best when it’s helping to lead a strong Europe.”
Many of the themes and positions of the Brexit campaign echoes in the U.S. presidential election campaign: immigration, border security, trade, manufacturing jobs, “Britain First.”
Betting odds shifted over the weekend from “Leave” to “Remain.” But most experts still say the vote is too close to predict.
It takes a lot to uproot oneself (and family), arrange travel via a trafficker, step onto a boat with a few possessions and no guarantees.They are called migrants or refugees—or both. Whichever term comes to mind, they are all people, many looking to improve their lot in life. But most, experts say, are running from instability and violence. According to the United Nations, the recent wave of migrants represents the largest dislocation of people since the Second World War. The estimated number of migrants in Europe runs in the hundreds of thousands, up to over a million registered asylum seekers. Thus, the term “migrant crisis,” which is useful shorthand, but doesn’t allow for the scale and scope of human suffering involved. As Europe struggles to cope with the influx (via the sea from Turkey or Libya into Greece or Italy, for the most part), America is bracing for the expected spillover.
We understand that perspective is hard to come by at this stage of the race, and you are obsessively watching the polls and attempting to shape your image to a media ready to pounce on every slip. But the world is watching at a time of great uncertainty
The kind of conventional military conflict that NATO was designed to deter — a Red Army invasion of Western Europe — is more of a danger now that at any time since the fall of the Berlin War. Russia under Vladimir Putin has rebuilt its military and has undertaken a series of invasion of its […]
Republican front-runner Donald Trump would go farther, having described the 28-state alliance as “obsolete” more than once during his push for the GOP presidential ticket. Members don’t pay up their fair share, or at all, and the clunky security organization is ill-suited for the war on terror, according to Trump. After the deadly terrorist attacks on Brussels, which just happens to be NATO’s homebase, and moves by Russian President Vladimir Putin in Ukraine and elsewhere, others have also raised questions about the relevance of the alliance in a shifting world order.
But this week while hosting NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the White House, President Barack Obama declared NATO “…a linchpin, a cornerstone of our collective defense and U.S. security policy.” Still, influential pundits and columnists have raised legitimate concerns about NATO’s lack of agility, bloated bureaucracy and lopsided financing that leaves the military bills largely in the hands of the United States.
There have been other public figures (former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates for one) to voice dim views of NATO, originally created in 1949 after the Second World War—a time when the Soviet Union was fully intact and on a mission to expand. Which raises yet another set of questions: has NATO evolved along with the world? And is the alliance equipped to respond to modern threats?
“Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus.” With one pithy line 14 years ago, the foreign policy theorist Robert Kagan captured what seemed like obvious differences between the U.S. and Europe….in this time of political turmoil on both sides of the Atlantic, it’s so striking to watch Mars and Venus reverse their Bush-era alignment.
[A]ccording to European officials, other migrants are traveling into the Nordic and Baltic states from Russia and are not fleeing the fighting in Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan, but rather have been living in Russia and are being encouraged by the Kremlin to join the tide in Western Europe.
Though their leaders certainly have work to do – for example, building more efficient and credible institutions – the EU remains a source of inspiration for others, from the refugees fleeing war and misery to the Chinese, who have constructed European-style cities.
America’s deliberate impotence has depleted our credibility and facilitated looming disasters. To stop the rot, we need to return to old-school realism: resolute action pursuing practical objectives.
Some 200,000 mainly Muslim children are entering German schools. Imagine if America, which has four times the German population, were to register 800,000 mainly Muslim children in schools in a few months. On reflection, don’t even try.
Europe’s entire security order, while not quite collapsing before our eyes, seems to be increasingly under strain and stress … This is bad news for the United States, of course, because a strong, confident, and united Europe represents the best pool of available partners for the U.S. in any part of the globe.
[E]ven when there are legitimate moral issues, there cannot be a duty for the United States to go to war simply because other powerful states fail to perform their moral duties. As in the case of national security, there should be no moral “free riders.”.