Transatlantic relations enter a phase of political divorce

According to Isna, the new US national security strategy document, which was compiled under the supervision of US President Donald Trump, is similar to the previous eras, which was prepared by going through complex bureaucratic processes and had more cautious language, has a fundamental difference. The document has shocked America’s long-time allies, especially Europe, and experts see it as a sign of Trump’s pro-MEGA (Restore Greatness to America) movement trying to transform the post-World War II foreign policy order.

The Guardian wrote with this introduction in a report: The initial draft of this document was entrusted to “Michael Anton”, a conservative politician and former director of political planning at the US State Department – a radical and controversial person from the MAGA movement, whom officials have called the main author of the radical and new US national security strategy. This document, which warns that immigration to Europe will cause “civilizational decline” in this continent, also refers to the revival of the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere and the reduction of the level of American responsibility in competition with great powers such as China and Russia, has shocked America’s allies.

Anton previously drew attention in 2016 when he likened the upcoming election to a hijacked plane in which conservatives must make fundamental changes in American politics and reject pro-immigration positions that are “a sign of a dying party, society, country, people, and civilization.”

With this in mind, it is not surprising that the recent national security strategy, usually a heavy document full of measured and bureaucratic phrases, sounded like a bombshell. While the document survived a grueling bureaucratic process from the State Department to Trump’s top advisers and was released last week without further fanfare, some of its recommendations were so extreme that European leaders said American skepticism toward Europe had now become “official doctrine.”

America’s new national security strategy revealed the gap in transatlantic relations

The British media continued to write “Max Bergman”, director of the Europe, Russia and Eurasia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said: “I think it is clear that “MAGA” is trying to be a revolutionary movement. This movement is trying to completely subvert the American foreign policy after the war and really change the direction of the country.”

In this regard, German Chancellor Friedrich Mertes recently said that the new security strategy of the American government will change transatlantic relations, and at the same time, he expressed hope that Washington will remain Germany’s partner.

The institutional thinking in the new document runs counter to decades of bipartisan foreign policy consensus that saw European institutions, including NATO and the European Union, as allies in competition with great powers like Russia and China. The new document sees immigration as the biggest threat and recommends that the US must attract illiberal allies in Europe.

“It’s like a divorce,” Bergman said of Europe’s reaction. They don’t want the marriage to end; They are looking for signs that the US is still interested. While this document was a confirmation that everything is over.”

The pessimistic critics of this document have said that the national security strategy rarely determines the country’s policy and has no budget. They have even expressed doubts that Trump has even read the 33-page document.

“My guess is that he never read it and never will,” said John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser in his first administration and has since become a prominent critic of the president. He did not read the national security strategy in his first administration, and no one ever paid attention to it.”

A document that does not set a specific policy, but clearly has an impact on the American bureaucracy

In the continuation of this report, it was pointed out that the national security strategies that have been made public since the mid-1980s have served as an arena for the competition of different views on American foreign policy: the White House during the Trump era has dramatically reduced the staff of key national security institutions as part of efforts to shrink the government and eliminate a “disloyal” bureaucratic “hidden government”, including in the National Security Council, which has long coordinated the national security policy of the United States.

Observers believe that the result is this recent document, which has not been studied deeply, but its implementation will be more difficult.

While the document does not set forth specific policy recommendations, there are signs that its spirit is playing out in parts of America’s vast bureaucracy. Because US embassies in Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have been ordered to collect data on crimes committed by immigrants, and senior officials have said that mass immigration is an “existential threat to Western civilization and the security of the West and the world.”

Senior American diplomats also warn these countries by redesigning the position of the European Union as a key competitor.

Christopher Landau, the Deputy Secretary of State, who is a pioneer in promoting this administration’s immigration goals, wrote shortly after the document was published: “Either the great countries of Europe are our partners in protecting the Western civilization that we inherited from them, or they are not.” “We cannot pretend to be partners while those countries allow an undemocratic bureaucracy of civilizational suicide policies to be pursued in Brussels.”

end of message