Ever since France and Spain's timely and effective intervention during the War of Independence (1776 -1783) the United States future has been intrinsically linked to Europe's. Initially, the Old World led and largely dominated this relationship as international affairs were predominately Eurocentric. But after the United States real revolution - the US Civil War(1861-65) - the economic balance of power began to swing towards the New World and by the late 1890's Uncle Sam had become the biggest commercial power in the World. Subsequently, the crucial and decisive intervention by American troops on the battlefields of Northern Europe in 1917 signalled that their economic power had now been extended to their military prowess. By 1945 and the end of another global conflagration this economic and military pre-eminence had also reached into the political. In other words, the United States had become the completest pre-eminent nation the World had ever known, while Europe had been relegated to being a group of nations that now acted within a post imperial prism supported by Marshal Plan money.

Subsequently, for all the French claims concerning the creation of a new unified Europe it was Washington who behind the scenes drove the critical rapprochement between Bonn and Paris. The establishment of this historic relationship laid down the stabilising conditions vital for the subsequent Treaty of Rome(1957) and the slow evolution of what is known today as the European Union. But since 1945 the management and maintenance of Western European security has largely been in the hands of NATO and therefore, Washington. The 'obviousness' of this situation remained throughout the Cold War as the US used its money and men to protect Europe from the apparent wander lust of Soviet Russia. But do not be under any allusion ever since Alfred Mahan's seminal book on Sea Power(1890) the US understood that the most effective way of defending its own nation's borders was to defend them on someone's else's real estate. Germany might have become the bulwark against Russian advancement into Western Europe but it had also become the first line of defence for the American homeland. Hence, the subsequent creation of NATO had become a structural as well as a military extension of American power.

After the Berlin Wall was dismantled(1989) and the Soviet Union imploded the role and purpose of NATO suddenly became contested. Yet, by the now the institution had built its own form of protection; its reason for being - whatever that was - and for all their critical and sometimes threatening rhetoric Washington did not want to lose their key foothold in Europe since NATO had not just become a military entity but by now a highly political one. Its very existence reinforced the idea that Western ideals underpinned by American reasoning was the only game in town and therefore, any other form of political/security relationship was and is just poppycock. But that reasoning alone was not seen as strong enough now that 'obviousness' of NATO that the Cold War had guaranteed was no longer in play. Therefore, NATO, went in search of a new 'unchallengeable' role. So, although NATO is not linked directly to the European Union it started to expand its operations and reach as its Brussels neighbour expanded its. This development was again being driven by Washington and tacitly agreed by Brussels. Since it looked to put pressure on the Russians due to Putin's more assertive style that was being witnessed via his increased Middle Eastern interventions.

Moreover, along side this development NATO strengthened its raison d'etre by starting to operate outside of the understood 'European Defence Area' - Afghanistan. Who agreed to this role change? Was this development ever discussed publicly? Not really, since this deployment of NATO troops was done under the US constructed umbrella of the UN. But do not be confused by these 'smoke and mirrors' the desire to go to Afghanistan was so that NATO continued to hold its institutional and structural place in Europe and was therefore, non 'replaceable'. Hence, almost imperceptibly NATO became not just a defender of Western Europe it was now effectively an extension of US/EU foreign policy that was publicly but superficially managed in Brussels but still clearly led by the paymaster - Washington. The strength and the considerable weakness of this situation from a European perspective has been unfolding recently with disastrous consequences. Yes, the Americans continue to pick up 70% of the cost of NATO but as an increasingly disjointed and ineffective US foreign policy in the Middle East took hold it drove millions of refugees across European borders and brought with it the facility and ability of terrorists to do their worst as witnessed in Paris and Brussels. Moreover, the parallel extension of NATO and the EU has understandably made Moscow nervous as it now sees this military organisation not just as a defensive force but an offensive one with 'expansionist tenancies'. These changes and somewhat confusing perspectives have generated increased tensions as highlighted in the Ukraine recently as Putin looked to develop his own 'fire break' between an an expanding EU/NATO and Russia.

Trump's impending arrival into the White House has undoubtedly placed the spotlight firmly on the changing and fractured nature of US society that includes as one of its remedies a more protectionist agenda. (Remember that Brexit was just that, a call for more protection ). Hence many are now wondering how these populist reflections will effect the up and coming Italian referendum, and the crucial French and German elections. So is it time for Europe to take charge of its own security? Is it time for the EU to have a recognised and legitimate independent foreign policy? Since it seems that the confusion and confluence of European security and American foreign policy that has developed post Cold War has helped create a condition that might ultimately lead to the dismantling of the EU. Although this scenario seems a little far fetched, what would we have said if someone had pronounced a year ago that the UK would leave Europe and Trump would become 'leader of the free World! Is is so unreasonable that Le Pen will not win the French Presidency after the calamity that has been Hollande? Is the right wing in Germany that far from mounting a authentic challenge to Merkel thanks largely to the increasing strain due to the influx of  refugees? 

We are entering or have entered a new norm in International Relations because the space between Equity and Liberty has grown too far apart and large sections of society in the US and Europe have had enough. In other words, our post Cold War understanding of freedom has not become redefined and determined by democracy but by a 'no holds barred'  brand of neo liberal economics that was initiated in the US and supported with gusto in the UK. This narrowly defined 'its the economy stupid' approach to all social matters (globalisation) is just too unfair, too indiscriminate and too unjust. It has effectively destabilised mature as well as developing democracies and brought the long standing and historic relationship between Europe and the US into question.

It is clear that next moves that both the EU and the US make should be made very carefully and with great consideration since if a more protectionist and insulationist approach prevails then the notions of collective responsibility for economic as well as physical and ecological security between nation-states will become scarce indeed. However, the audiences that are pushing for change will not just be quietened by sober and reasoned thought since their selected representatives are individuals specifically chosen to make decisions and get 'things done' that are not just for established interests. We can only hope that these representatives make the right calls for both Europe and the United States future!

KK                              

As the US Presidential election results State by State rolled in on Tuesday night the eyes of a large number of students that I was in the company of were focused on the bar size TV screens, as their faces gradually turned from one of assumed expectation, to growing tension, shock and then total disbelief, Donald ducked under the polls and stole the presidential prize. Yet why were these students let alone most of the World really surprised that a man such as Donald Trump should gain access to the Oval Office? After all one of the cliché driven notions of the United States is that ANYONE can become President, as Trump's success surely proved!

As someone who had already suggested caution over an assumed Clinton victory in my lectures and discussions leading up to this election even I decided to sit back for a couple of days after 'Trump's Triumph' before reaching for my keyboard as the reasons and ramifications of this amazing result needed careful and cool consideration. So,  firstly, why did a man best known for his real estate and reality show antics, his 'locker room' talk, his distant relationship with the truth, who was treated as a political and cultural joke by most of the American media become 'leader of the free world'?

The answer is relatively simple although  a complex of societal components including inequality, ignorance and inhumanity are involved. But lets start with 'the economy stupid'. Since the late 1980's as dear old 'Ronnie Reagan' receded into the dispiriting and disabling disease that is Alzheimer's so did the American economy. Since then the working classes in the US have seen no real term increase in their wage earning. Moreover, during this 25 year period many have seen at best continuing reductions in living standards and at worst long term unemployment, an increasing use of food banks, and ultimately homelessness. As the 'rulers of the universe' watched their salaries sky-rocket from their Wall Street 'launch' pads many in Main Street felt the increasing economic pain of a financial system that recognised few laws of fairness and equity and a globalized market place where the strongest just got stronger as the weaker just got weaker. The politicians from both main parties funded by Wall Street and Big Oil largely paid lip service to this damaging societal dynamic that allowed a 'free movement' of goods, services and money that failed to recognise national boundaries or borders let alone the traditional industries of steel and coal that had harnessed the Rust Belt States of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin for generations. All these states would be won by Trump.

These economic stresses that brought about deepening societal cracks weren't really acknowledged until it was too late as ironically, the very banks and financial institutions that had helped create this condition crashed. Since the subsequent 2008 economic meltdown was just the precursor to a continuing erosion of traditional working class employment and deployment; skilled and semi skilled industrial jobs, and manual labour disappeared or dispersed as this part of the US  felt the triple whammy of increased automation via robotics, computer advancement and increased competition from overseas. In other words, the adoption of neo-liberal free trade economics in the 1980's and the subsequent arrival of the third industrial revolution during the last ten years had helped develop the growing iniquities of a hollowed out society as the inflated egos of over paid executives flew in their private jets over large areas of low paid, few benefits, insecure work America.

The black vote held up for Obama during the next eight years due to the tribal nature of the political and racial divide in the US hence with the exception of the Tea Party there was little real opportunity for the largely white working classes to revolt at their treatment that came seemingly from a disconnected 'uncaring established elite' that sat in Washington and Wall Street - For many Hilary was already seen as a fully paid up member of this particular tribe. Then arrived a self financed alternative, who spoke in way that the working classes recognised. This man spoke to the disaffected under the banner of the Republican Party but he was/is no traditional established Republican. He believes in government intervention at most levels of society. 

His audience felt and saw themselves as victims of a unfair system propped up by the insidious influences of globalization,  free market liberal economics and rank awful governance and they had a point. But Trump not only agreed with their sentiments he identified and articulated who the perpetrators of these crimes were - poor free trade deals, unfair overseas competition and illegal immigration, in other words, outsiders, non Americans, the protected elite.The irony here is startling since Trump is himself an outsider and a multi billionaire but his description of the 'enemy' was anti establishment, racial and fiercely nationalistic. The return of protectionism had come as Trump extolled the virtues of 'Making America Great Again'. Although  Clinton's softer, reasoned and more experienced approach appealed to the the die-hard Democrat States of East and West coast life this approach sounded too much of the same and less about radical change, it sounded as it was to protect the lives of the well heeled and acceptable middle classes. But in the key swing states numbering about ten where all elections are normally decided Clinton was increasingly seen as part of the problem not part of the solution.                                        

Why didn't the black and Latino community vote for Clinton? Why didn't more women vote for Clinton? Why didn't many of the young supporters of Bernie Saunders vote for Clinton? Many did, but too many either stayed at home, voted independent or in desperation, Trump. Why? Because Clinton the technocrat, was also seen as a flawed candidate that could not be trusted especially as her policies suggested little real change from the continuing economic status quo. No wonder the working classes and younger voters said no, moreover many black Americans who witnessed zero improvement in their own lives during Obama's reign also turned their backs. Whilst many 'mature' women in the US did not find Trump's misogynistic crudities as off putting as some of the more 'sensitive younger sisters'.

Finally, because of the electoral college system in the US Trump's team understood better than most the notion of marginal gain. In other words, they understood that in the key states of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania etc all they needed was to collect a extra but relatively small number of Latino, black, women and young people votes and the balance of power would move. Meanwhile Hilary and her Beltway buddies forgot that she just could not rely on the Latino or Black vote for she had to work just as hard for their support. These small differences and deficiencies in strategy that polls assiduously ignored could bring seismic changes to the domestic America as well as international relations. The United States approach to immigration and free trade will now be under the spotlight as well as abortion and the Affordable Health Care Bill. For Europe NATO and who pays for it will be heavily scrutinised but far outweighing all these issues is the desire by Trump to tear up the Paris climate change accord. This single act of lunacy will spell disaster for the long term viability of our race...

More later on the effects that a Trump Presidency might bring to the rest of the World.        
   
Kindest

KK