Seismic Shift Across The Atlantic

By Dr Khairi Janbek

Even before Trump’s coming of age, which is a long way away, or  more accurately so, coming to power, one often wondered about the status of the European Union (EU) in the world of changing circumstances and the existential meaning of its presence on the world power map among the increasing differences among its member states.

Although and frankly, differences always existed within the Union, the Russian invasion of Ukraine made those differences more acute, sharper and penchant materializing between those Europeans fearing being next on the Russian menu, those who want an assertive position against Moscow, those reluctant either way, and those who are out rightly pro-Russia.

Evidently, having unity among the 27 European countries which are not necessarily different in their political structures, yet having necessarily different strategic interests end up with infighting, recriminations and threats.

As well what makes things near-impossible, is that the EU does not have a mechanism to expel a fellow-member from the Union, so one is always beleiving that there is hope that an obtrusive member of the Union would walk out voluntarily in the manner made by the British Brexit.

Now it is more complicated. Not only the EU is having to deal with a possible Russian threat, but also a looming trade war with the US that is compounded with the distinct possibility that America may be withdrawing its protection umbrella from Europe.

Of course, this legitimately raises the question about the future of NATO; a question which was raised before especially after the demise of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. This ultimately means a new form of a military alliance will be required for the EU.

Ideally, one would have thought a smaller EU entity, leaner and meaner, with incorporation of Britain in it, would the best option, while the rest of Europe, from its center to its eastern side, hitched by accords with Russia and the USA.

This would be far better instead of the current large European crippled Levathian with Britain running like a headless chicken proposing to be the bridge between the USA and EU, a link both sides of the Atlantic believe it’s too far a gap for any meaningful effect.

Having said all that, there is a window of opportunity now with the new government in Germany, showing more courageous initiatives in wanting to see a reset of the Atlantic relationship, which falls well with President Macron of France, the other core member of the EU which has the idea of creating a single European army to protect the EU and its interests.

When it comes to transnational trade, the absurdity of the war of tariffs will hurt all including the American economy, though European companies whose main market is in the USA will go and invest in America, but those US companies whose main market is Europe, will invest in the EU.

Essentially, the seismic shift in relations across the Atlantic is set to commence with most probably less profits but more fairness.

Dr Khairi Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in ParisFrance

Continue reading
Is America Abandoning Europe?

In 2007, Russia’s President Putin gave a now-infamous speech at the Munich Security Conference (MSC), announcing Russia’s new posture of hostility towards the US and Europe. In 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine, many looked back at Putin’s 2007 Munich speech as a revealing moment of his intentions.

This year’s MSC could be a similar watershed. This time, the warning bells ring from across the Atlantic. US Vice President JD Vance delivered one of the most hostile speeches by a US official to Europe in decades. Rather than addressing the Russian or Chinese threats, Vance argued that Europe faced a “threat from within,” accusing the EU and national governments of censorship and ignoring popular demands on issues like illegal migration.

Meanwhile, away from Munich, US President Donald Trump held a phone call with Putin, setting the stage for negotiations between the US and Russia for a peace agreement in Ukraine – without involving European counterparts in the discussions. The day before, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth announced some of the US expectations from this deal: Ukraine should drop its NATO membership bid, European countries would need to provide the forces to enforce the agreement, and these forces would not be covered by NATO’s Article 5 guarantees.

The transatlantic picture in which the MSC took place was even bleaker. Since Trump’s inauguration one month ago, the new president had promised (and now imposed) tariffs against countries across the world, including Europe. He has threatened to annex the territory of allies like Canada and Denmark.

Normally, the MSC is an opportunity for the United States to reaffirm its commitment to Europe and the Atlantic alliance. This year, it could be remembered as the time when the US started the process of abandoning Europe – or even going aggressively after it.   

An attack on Europe

Vance’s speech and the reactions to it have dominated the discussions at the MSC. Although the conference theme was “multilateralization”, the real topic on everyone’s mind was: how would Trump’s second administration approach Europe?

As the pre-conference report argued: “Donald Trump’s presidential victory has buried the US post–Cold War foreign policy consensus that a grand strategy of liberal internationalism would best serve US interests.” That this consensus was gone was clearly visible in the conference. Despite perfunctory references to shared values, Vance’s speech did not talk about the alliance between Europe and North America, nor about the common threats and how to face them.

And he has voiced support for anti-EU parties. Vance pronounced his speech in Germany, just weeks before federal elections, and argued that there should not be “firewalls” in government – a clear reference to the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) which has so far been kept out of governing coalitions. After the speech, Vance met with the AfD leader.

Additionally, Vance criticized Romania for canceling its 2024 elections and accused the EU of censoring free speech. But Vance failed to acknowledge that the very election that brought Trump and him to power in November was the subject of major foreign interference by Russia, China, and Iran. Rather than sitting idly by, US agencies took active measures to counter these malign actions and prevent disruptions – like raising awareness, coordinating with the media, and keeping politics out of the fight. With his speech, Vance seems to be arguing for the exact opposite approach.

All these issues did not touch on security and defense, the core of the MSC’s discussions. But they did lure in the background of Vance’s speech. A few months ago, Vance argued that the EU should not regulate tech companies owned by Elon Musk. If the Europeans did so, he argued, the US should reduce its security commitments to NATO. Hence, American assurances could become bargaining chips to resolve other issues.   

How will the EU respond?

Vance’s Munich speech marks a new era in US relations with Europe. While the themes are not new – Trump has never been a fan of NATO, and enjoys courting Europe’s far-right – the extent of the rhetorical change cannot be understated. Ukraine’s President Zelensky, speaking in Munich the day after Vance, spelled out the challenge in clear terms: “We can’t rule out the possibility that America might say ‘no’ to Europe on issues that threaten it.”

The reaction from European leaders has been strong so far. EU Commission President Von der Leyen called for an emergency clause in the EU treaties to allow member states to boost defense spending [8]. French President Macron called for a summit of European leaders in Paris on Monday, February 17 – to sketch out a common position on the upcoming negotiations over Ukraine, and on making up for US security guarantees from Europe.

The greatest challenge, however, will be transforming outrage into meaningful action. Europeans have long ignored calls to take charge of their own security. Domestic constraints over spending, divisions and the continued belief that Uncle Sam will have their back have stood in the way of ambitious choices. Will this time be different?  

This opinion was written by Giuseppe Spatafora for the Anadolu news website.

Continue reading
World Condemn Trump’s Plan Over Gaza

US President Donald Trump’s recent proposal to relocate Palestinians from Gaza and place the territory under long-term US control has sparked widespread international backlash.

Unveiled during a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the plan envisions transforming Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East” by resettling Palestinians in neighboring countries like Jordan and Egypt.

While the proposal received support from Israel, the global response has been overwhelmingly negative, with strong condemnations from major powers, regional countries, and even US lawmakers.

Global powers reject forced relocation

Both Russia and China criticized the plan, highlighting the violation of international norms.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov reaffirmed Russia’s support for a two-state solution, while the Russian Foreign Ministry said: “Any populist comments are counter-productive and ramp up tensions.”

China condemned the forced displacement, emphasizing that “Palestinians governing Palestine” is fundamental for post-conflict stability.

European countries have also been vocal on the plan, expressing strong opposition.

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock labeled the proposal a breach of international law, stressing that Gaza belongs to the Palestinians.

France reiterated its opposition to any forced displacement, calling it a serious violation of international law.

The UK, under Prime Minister Keir Starmer, supported Palestinian rights to return and rebuild, while Denmark said: “It doesn’t seem to be a realistic way forward.”

Reasserting Italy’s support for the two-state solution, the Italian foreign minister said nothing can be achieved without the Palestinians, noting: “It seems to me that it is a bit difficult (to implement the plan).”

Spain, Ireland, and Slovenia, having recognized Palestine in 2024, condemned the plan, calling it ignorant of Palestinian history and contradiction of the UN Security Council resolutions.

Belgium said forced displacement of populations constitutes “a grave breach of international humanitarian law” while Poland expressed support for a two-state solution.

Canada, where Trump put tariffs on hold last week, said its longstanding position on Gaza has not changed and is committed to achieving a two-state solution.

Relocation plan ‘unacceptable’

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan condemned the plan as “unacceptable,” stressing that even considering such a proposal is wrong. The Turkish Defense Ministry declared its complete opposition to the displacement of Palestinians.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas rejected the plan outright, stating peace cannot be attained without a Palestinian state.

Hamas group called it “hostile,” while Qatar, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia warned it would destabilize the region.

Iran also voiced firm opposition to the plan, and Iraq condemned the plan to displace Palestinians.

Although Latin American countries were largely silent, Brazil’s President Lula da Silva criticized the proposal as “incomprehensible,” questioning where displaced Palestinians would live.

Dissent within US

Despite originating in Washington, the plan faced criticism even from US lawmakers.

Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen condemned it as “ethnic cleansing by another name.” Representative Rashida Tlaib, a Palestinian-American, declared: “Palestinians aren’t going anywhere.”

Even Republican figures like Senator Lindsey Graham found the proposal “problematic,” while Senator Tim Kaine labeled it “deranged.”

Trump’s Gaza relocation plan has united a broad spectrum of global opposition, transcending geopolitical divides.

While no country has openly expressed support for the plan, many countries have remained silent. Argentina, Japan, and India, the countries that sent representatives to Trump’s inauguration, have not made any statements on the issue.

Countries that want to maintain good relations with the new US administration have also remained silent. Latin American countries, where Trump has cracked down on immigration and drugs after taking the office, have so far kept mum.

Aside from Israel, the international community remains steadfast in rejecting forced displacement, advocating instead for a two-state solution as the only viable path to lasting peace in the region according to Anadolu.

Continue reading
Russia Rejects Trump Plan For Gaza

Russia on Wednesday slammed US President Donald Trump’s plan to take over the Gaza Strip as a manifestation of the Western “cancel culture.”

Speaking at a roundtable meeting on Ukraine with ambassadors in Moscow, Sergey Lavrov argued that this “culture of cancellation” has now become particularly evident in relation to the situation in the Middle East.

Highlighting the decisions of the UN Security Council, he said that these decisions, “which were recognized by everyone without exception a month and a half ago as a necessary basis for actions to create a Palestinian state, have simply been canceled,” according to Anadolu.

During a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington on Tuesday, Trump said that the US “will take over” Gaza after relocating Palestinians elsewhere under a redevelopment plan that he claimed could turn the enclave into “the Riviera of the Middle East.”

Continue reading
A World Without America?

By Dr Khairi Janbek

Away from the condom politics which seems to be just an obsession of a Washington administration suffering from erectile dysfunction, on thought it would be intriguing to imagine a world without America, which means deep cultural, economic as well as political implications. It’s a thought experiment which forces one to imagine how the world would look like without the specific influence, history and power dynamics that the USA has shaped.

On the geopolitical and global power level, other nations would have to step in into the void, vying for influence. Europe, China, Russia and India would probably play a central role on global politics, in addition, the Security Council of the UN will start looking very different, Europe would become the dominant force strengthening its collective military and political capabilities.

In terms of culture and society, American has played a central role in shaping global pop culture, Hollywood, music, fashion and hi-tech, indeed other nations would have come in, in Asia South Korea, Japan and India would take a central role in shaping global culture, with Europe asserting itself in the arts and literature.

In technology and innovation, the US has produced Silicon Valley and leading corporations in software, hardware and AI, however without, China and Europe would fill the hitech leadership role which probably would accelerate their breakthroughs.

As for the economy, without America, the world economy would be real different, the US dollar would not be the world reserve currency, with the Euro and the Yuan, being the global standard. Trade dynamics would be rearranged and institutions like the World Bank and the IMF would have other substitutes.

Regarding military and defense, American power is unmatched , without it global security dynamics would shift drastically, NATO might not exist, while regions powers like Russia, China and India, would become more aggressive in asserting their influence.

In terms of the environment and social movements, the US has been at the forefront of global debates on climate change, social Justice and human rights; taking note of course, with mixed results, but without it, certainly others would take the lead, for a start, Europe has been a leader in pushing for climate action , and in social action, countries like Brazil, South Africa, would fill in the gap with most probably leading to different outcomes. But , the USA has been a major donor for global and humanitarian aid, and their contribution would have to be substituted by other coalitions, which one assumes would be limited only to crisis.

Essentially, a world system without America, the international system would be less centered around one dominant great power, as power would be more diffuse with multiple centers of influence and more regional power struggles, but at the end of the day, the purpose for the use of condoms would be much clearer.

Dr Janbek is an opinion writer based in Paris

Continue reading