Looking Past 2016: Western Europe in US Foreign Policy
As the presidential race progresses, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have both solidified stances on key issues that will reverberate across the Atlantic into Western Europe. These ideas have the potential to destroy, preserve, or otherwise permanently alter relationships between the United States and its key allies in the region. On terrorism, which has made its destructive force known in France and Belgium especially, Clinton claims that boosting intelligence through partnerships with European allies is key, while Trump aims to attack terrorist networks directly by conducting more airstrikes. On the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Clinton strongly supports expanding and strengthening the security alliance against Russian aggression; Trump, on the other hand, has levied multiple criticisms against the organization. On the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a trade agreement currently being negotiated between the European Union and the United States to reduce trade barriers and lower tariffs, neither candidate has taken a clear stance, although Clinton’s administration seems more likely to voice support.
Combatting Terrorism In the past two years, the self-styled Islamic State (ISIS), with its terrorist network, has targeted Western Europe multiple times —think back to the January 2015 Charlie Hebdo attacks, the coordinated Paris attacks of November 2015, the Brussels metro and airport bombings in March 2016, and the Bastille Day attacks in Nice in July 2016. As one of the world’s largest powers, the response of the United States to these attacks matters to its allies in Western Europe. Both candidates have vehemently denounced terrorism, but each has expressed different ideas about how to combat the threat.
Clinton supports collaboration with Western Europe. She has called for prioritizing an “intelligence surge” that would open networks of information-sharing between the United States and Western European nations. Beyond intelligence, Clinton wants to coordinate with Western allies on everything from airstrikes to a crackdown on online radicalization.
Donald Trump’s rhetoric on combatting terrorism has not mentioned Western Europe. He focuses on domestic immigration policy to combat terrorism, stating that he “will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies…”
NATO The North Atlantic Treaty Organization provides for the collective defense and political/military alliance of twenty-six European nations, the United States, and Canada. Recently, NATO has emerged as the primary counterforce to Putin’s Russia.
Hillary Clinton has taken a clear pro-NATO stance, referring to the pact as “one of the best investments America has ever made.” She has even voiced plans to enlarge the organization. Western European nations generally back Clinton in her support of NATO because of its importance as a bulwark of protection against Russia. Russia has presented itself as a threat to Europe in recent years due to its nuclear capabilities and interests in taking back parts of Eastern Europe, as evidenced by its annexation of Crimea in 2014.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, has attacked NATO. He stated that “NATO may be obsolete” and that, as president, he would not automatically come to the aid of member countries if they were attacked. In an interview with The New York Times in July, Trump said that he would only assist European allies “if they fulfill their obligations to us.”
Since then, Trump appears to have have rethought his stance on NATO. In the first presidential debate, Trump remarked that he is “all for NATO.” Still, his anti-NATO comments have not resonated well with European leaders. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, for example, told the Financial Times that “solidarity among allies is a key value for NATO.”
TTIP The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the United States and the European Union would remove regulatory barriers to trade, cut tariffs, and establish firm human rights and environmental standards pertaining to commerce. In the wake of Brexit and growing global populist sentiments, support for free trade agreements such as the TTIP has declined throughout the Western world. A dozen European countries, including the United Kingdom, Italy, and Germany, still support the TTIP, but Austria and Belgium have voiced criticism and seen the eruption of a number of protests. President Obama supports the agreement, but negotiations have slowed, placing the future of EU-US economic cooperation in the hands of the next president.
Hillary Clinton has not yet taken a firm stance on the EU-US trade agreement. Though she once referred to TTIP as the “economic NATO,” revealing support for increased economic cooperation with Western Europe, she has since taken a stance against similar free trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). This flip-flop can be attributed to increasing populist pressures, particularly as Clinton seeks to woo supporters of Bernie Sanders. With this in mind, it is possible that Clinton will ultimately pursue the economic agreement with the EU despite her current position.
Donald Trump has called the TTIP “an attack on America’s business.” If Trump is elected, TTIP negotiations will likely end. Europeans who believe that the agreement will lower European standards will be happy about this, but multinational corporations, supporters of free trade, and German chancellor Angela Merkel will not be pleased.
The results of the upcoming election have the potential to drastically change the relationships between the United States and its allies in Western Europe. While counter-terrorism partnerships, the strengthening of NATO, and economic cooperation could reinforce ties between the two regions, many issues remain, including isolationist rhetorics in both the U.S. and Western Europe, that threaten to weaken these traditionally strong alliances.
This article is part of a special Caravel series about how foreign policy proposals by the US presidential nominees will affect the regions that make up our sections. Foreign policy implications for other sections are available below: