Category Archives: Europe

Britain, China, Economic, Europe, European Union, Government, Politics, Society, United States

UK-China relations: The Brexit dilemma

BRITAIN-CHINA

Intro: Trump’s trade wars have exasperated the Eurosceptic model, which is more outdated than ever

WHEN the transatlantic alliance was more functional than now, there was never a united view of China. Beijing has always been perceived as a commercial rival and potential security threat, and a common wariness has existed. For hawks in Washington, however, the idea of an alternative superpower closing in on economic and technological parity feels existential. More dovish Europeans have been openly compromising and readier to leaven caution with engagement.

Britain has veered between the two poles. In 2015, David Cameron promised a “golden era” of open trade with China. In 2020, under pressure from the US, Boris Johnson banned Huawei, a Chinese telecoms company, from UK 5G infrastructure.

In opposition, Conservative politicians have become increasingly hawkish against Beijing. Keir Starmer’s Labour government has tilted back towards cooperation. Several Labour ministers have visited China, including the chancellor. Other ministers, including the business secretary, will go there later this year, to revive a trade commission that has been dormant since 2018. Despite being manifestly frustrated with the Chinese owners of British Steel during the recent dash to keep Scunthorpe’s blast furnaces operating, the UK government has retreated from intimations of deliberate sabotage.

At some point, a reckoning has to be made. The pursuit of economic growth and investment will inevitably come into conflict with a national security interest in keeping China at arm’s length. The question is where to draw the line. The official line is that judgment is deferred pending a Whitehall “audit” of relations with Beijing. That is due in June.

A UK government decision is also imminent on China’s status under the foreign influence registration scheme – a system for keeping tabs on international organisations and companies exercising political influence in Britain. China is not expected to be named in the “enhanced tier” of risky states, alongside Russia and Iran, but some Chinese institutions might have that designation.

Calibrating these judgments – choosing when to prioritise security over commerce – is much harder with Donald Trump in the White House. What used to be a difference of emphasis between the US and Europe looks like an irreparable fracture in the west.

Trump has started a ferocious trade war with Beijing without a convincing strategic rationale. His officials have told Europeans they will have to choose a side when it comes to vital communications technology. Yet, what we see is a US president who has become routinely aggressive in his rhetoric towards the EU, dismissive of NATO, and reliably emollient towards Putin’s Russia.

From that pattern it is clear in Brussels and other continental capitals that Washington is no longer a reliable ally and the trajectory must be “strategic autonomy” for Europe. That is changing the calculus of risk and potential benefit from a more pragmatic China policy. The authoritarian character of Xi Jinping’s regime hasn’t changed, but it presents itself as a more predictable force in international affairs while US democracy declines in harsh and sporadic spasms.

Such changes illuminate a crisis of international orientation for Britain that has been building since Brexit. Economic detachment from Europe was promised on a model of the UK as a lone sovereign agent in an open, free-trading globalised world. That concept has aged very poorly, and it stands more of an outdated concept now than it ever has. Britain is not alone in struggling to navigate relations with China in the turbulent new geopolitical climate, but choosing loneliness and isolation in a world of rival continental blocks is making the struggle much harder.

Standard
Britain, Europe, Government, Politics, Russia, Society, Ukraine, United States

Kyiv’s allies should avoid Putin’s entrapment

PROPOSED UKRAINE CEASEFIRE

PUTTING a stop to the killing in Ukraine is a highly desirable aim. A permanent end to the war would be a truly great achievement. Who on this earth would not welcome an agreement that stopped Russia’s daily slaughter of civilians and its destruction of Ukraine’s cities, and which would allow millions of displaced people to return home? As history clearly shows, peace at any price is no peace at all. In his untutored haste, Donald Trump risks rushing into a bad deal with Vladimir Putin that could set the stage for renewed conflict in Ukraine and other vulnerable countries bordering Russia and for an overall weakening of Europe’s security.

The proposed 30-day truce under discussion between the US and Russia entails a complete halt to fighting and temporary freezing of the frontlines in eastern Ukraine. It makes provision for the exchange of prisoners of war, release of civilian detainees, and the return from Russia of abducted Ukrainian children. The truce could be extended beyond the initial period. But Putin is adamant that, before it even begins, many complex, longer-term issues must be addressed, including the most fundamental point of all: Ukraine’s future as an independent, sovereign state.

This attempt by the Russian president to set highly problematic conditions must be firmly resisted by Trump and western leaders. As Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky says, it is a transparent bid to delay and manipulate the negotiations and win broader concessions, while allowing Moscow’s forces time to pursue battlefield gains, particularly in Russia’s contested Kursk region. It is not reasonable to insist on a halt to military aid to Kyiv during a truce. Putin’s demand that the historical “root causes” of the conflict be examined is a cynical ploy and trap, set to gain wider advantage.

Familiar tactics. Putin raises hopes of a breakthrough, then finds reasons why it must remain elusive. He tells untruths about the situation at the front, as in his fabricated claim that Ukrainian troops are encircled in Kursk. He flatters and plays Trump to his own tune, congratulating him for “doing everything” for peace and exploiting the US president’s ego-driven desire to keep his promise to end the war. Putin is brutally clear about his war aims: a neutral, disarmed Ukraine led by a Moscow-friendly government. His wider objective is an end to international ostracism, the lifting of punitive sanctions, and a remaking of Europe’s security architecture to suit his post-Soviet vision. All this to be achieved by a dramatic reset in US-Russia relations, as gaily and inexplicably offered, by his comrade in the White House.

Before making more unforced concessions, Trump should study very carefully this threatening agenda. He should remember this war would end today if Putin wished. He should understand the Russian bully does not want peace; he wants victory. He should stop at once regurgitating Russian propaganda. Most of all, he should stop his cruel persecution and intimidation of Zelensky and start applying substantial, painful pressure on Russia to halt its illegal and unjustified invasion of Ukraine. The fact that Trump is unlikely to do any of this goes to the heart of the problems surrounding the talks. For all his self-important bluster and insincere compassion, the “master dealmaker” does not have a plan extending beyond an immediate halt to the gunfire. Putin certainly does.

Trump’s optimistic prediction that a good agreement can be reached has little basis in fact. Britain, at least, is aware of this. Sir Keir Starmer says Putin is not serious about peace and should stop “playing games”. The PM’s latest attempt to rally European and other allies around a ceasefire deal backed by credible, in-theatre security guarantees is worthwhile. His “coalition of the willing” proposal, for example, is a key feature.

But Sir Keir surely knows that Trump’s mishandling of the negotiations so far, and his daily attempts to win personal credit for imaginary progress, as well as his persistent exclusion of the Ukrainians and his biased pressurising of Kyiv (but not Moscow), is unlikely to end well. No peacekeeping force, whether under a NATO, EU, or UN flag, can be deployed in Ukraine without viable security guarantees, principally from the US – which Trump withholds. Nor can it happen without Putin’s consent – and he is vehemently opposed.

The evident danger for Britain and Europe is that they may be strong-armed by Washington into endorsing and policing a flawed, short-term ceasefire cooked up by Trump and Putin that does not serve, and potentially undermines, their long-term objective: securing a free, sovereign Ukraine and putting a stop to Russian aggression. The dialogue between Putin and Trump is at an early stage, but who knows what Trump will give away next in his haste to claim the prestigious mantle of Nobel peacemaker, shaft his old foe Zelensky and appease his ex-KGB crony?

Trump has already told Ukraine it must accept the loss of occupied territory in the east and Crimea. He has already dashed its NATO membership hopes. He has already cut military aid and intelligence assistance once, refused to guarantee the peace, and publicly shamed and humiliated Zelensky in front of the world. And if a ceasefire fails to materialise, it’s a safe bet Trump will find a way to blame Kyiv.

Trump is no honest broker. He is no friend to Ukraine or Europe. Like Putin, he cannot be trusted to build or honour a just and lasting peace. A truce, on fair and reasonable terms, that Kyiv can freely accept, and that can be adequately monitored and effectively enforced, would be the way to proceed. In its absence, Ukraine must fight on with the support of Britain and other coalition partners.

Standard
Britain, Defence, Europe, European Union, France, Government, NATO, Politics, Russia, Society, Ukraine, United States

Europe can deal with America’s perfidy

A NEW WORLD ORDER

Intro: Europe is stepping up. If it perseveres, and its leaders keep their promises, then it will be better able to deter Russia on its own – and survive in a reordered and more hostile world

A WATERSHED moment is upon us as Britain and the entire European continent faces a turning point, a second Zeitenwende, and a new world order. Whichever turn of phrase best describes the dramatic shifts unfolding since Donald Trump began his second US presidential term in January, one thing is certain: nothing will be the same again. The key question now is what, in practical terms, Europe can and will do to meet this challenge. Is this paradigm shift in the world order Europe’s moment, when it finally comes of age as a global player? Or will the EU and its close neighbours collectively fail to rise to the occasion, condemning their citizens to an era of domination by bigger and more determined rapacious powers?

With incautious recklessness, Donald Trump is in the process of attempting to do three extraordinary things. First, he is trying to force Ukraine, which has spent more than three years under murderous assault, to accept a “peace deal” on inimical terms dictated by himself and the aggressor, Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Second, in a stunning reversal of US policy, he is seeking a rapprochement with Moscow that includes re-establishing full political and diplomatic relations, lifting sanctions and launching joint economic partnerships. Third, he is telling Europeans they must henceforth defend themselves; that the US, in effect, is no longer a loyal, reliable partner or even necessarily a friend, and that NATO, for 76 years the solid bedrock of transatlantic security, is dispensable.

European leaders are broadly united in their alarm at all three of these unwise, irrational, and dangerous interventions. At the same time, most accept that even if Trump didn’t hold office, a change in the balance of US-Europe relations is inescapable and more than overdue. In a national address, Emmanuel Macron, France’s president, summed up the position well: “Europe’s future should not be decided in Washington or Moscow,” he said. “The war in Ukraine… continues with the same intensity [but] the US, our ally, has changed its position.” As a result, Europe was entering a new era of self-reliance.

Mr Macron, like many others, was accused of appeasing Putin in 2022. He has learned better since. He warns now that Russian imperialist aggression “knows no borders”, directly threatening France and Europe. This is not just talk. He has shown imaginative leadership, producing a tentative plan for a staged ceasefire that has Ukrainian support, lobbying, flattering, and even correcting Trump to his face in the Oval Office. The French president has also been promoting an Anglo-French proposal to deploy a European “assurance force” in Ukraine composed of a so-called coalition of the willing.

There has been repeated recourse in recent days for Europe to “step up” as a matter of urgency. Germany surprised many with a positive leap into the future. A country that nurtures visceral horror of debt announced a spectacular U-turn of its own – the amending of its Basic Law to permit multibillion-euro investments in defence and national infrastructure. Quite remarkable given that Friedrich Merz, the Christian Democrat who held off the far-right to win last month’s federal election, has a reputation as a fiscal conservative. Not any more. And he has gone further even than Macron in urging Europe’s “independence” from the US and pledging ongoing, expanded military aid for Kyiv. Other European leaders, notably Donald Tusk, have “stepped up” in commendable ways, too. Poland’s prime minister is in an unenviable position. A strong adherent in the transatlantic alliance, he, like so many others, now must feel utterly betrayed by Trump. There is a real sense of perfidy in the air. NATO is a crucial shield for Poland, as it is for the three neighbouring Baltic republics.

Keir Starmer also recognises the historic nature of this moment, and has risen to meet it. He has worked assiduously and with due care to restrain Trump’s worst instincts. His evident contempt, displayed in the House of Commons, for the ignorant comments of US vice-president JD Vance about “random countries” showed he is not afraid to push back. The PM’s collaboration with EU leaders is a very welcome post-Brexit development that should be extended beyond defence and security. Yet like them, the UK faces daunting hurdles.

These challenges – on reducing Europe’s reliance on America, boosting its defences, and maintaining support for Ukraine – were the focus of the emergency EU summit. As is often the case in Brussels, the results were mixed. New overall defence spending of £670bn was agreed. But whether it ever materialises will depend on national governments’ willingness to borrow. The usual divisions were apparent – such as Hungary blocking a joint statement on Ukraine. Within NATO, most member states, like Britain, are now committing to higher spending. Non-EU countries, such as Norway, are also piling in. Oslo is belatedly, yet commendably, doubling its aid to Kyiv.

Europe is stepping up. If it perseveres, and its leaders keep their promises, then it will be better able to deter Russia on its own – and survive in a reordered and more hostile world. But how effective Europe can be in rescuing Ukraine in the short term from a developing Trump-Putin axis is in serious doubt. Trump still refuses to provide Kyiv with meaningful post-war security guarantees. His suspension of military aid, mapping, and intelligence assistance is encouraging Russia to intensify attacks. More civilians are dying each day because of Trump’s treachery. With each passing day, Ukraine is further brutalised and degraded. A just peace looks further away than ever. 

Standard