This piece was originally published in Politique Magazine n° 253
The National Security Strategy released by the White House in early December provoked a hurricane of comments, generally contemptuous and indignant. Admittedly, it is written in a grandiloquent style and breaks with diplomatic propriety by castigating certain internal developments in its partners, and does not hesitate to predict the “civilizational erasure” of a Europe presented as favouring immigration, as abandoning freedom of thought and expression and suffocating national identities under the weight of its regulations.
It should be noted in passing that those who are horrified by this interference remained very calm, or even approved, when America, from Clinton to Obama and Biden, actively promoted, through its Foundations and all kinds of federal programs, the New Age catechism of sexual undifferentiation or the systematic promotion of “minorities”, even among the European allies. The first piece of advice that can be given, to everyone, is not to internalize the problems and debates specific to the United States: America and its society follow norms and logics that are very different from those of Europe, and the solutions to the problems cannot be transposed from one side of the Atlantic to the other.
In particular, the European right-wing parties that are tempted to refer to Trumpism, such as the German AfD and sometimes the French RN, hould reflect, and take inspiration from Giorgia Meloni, who plays quite skilfully on her positive relationship with Washington – but always to defend Italian interests and without becoming Americanized.
This is why I prefer to carry out “a concrete analysis of a concrete document”, which was written by actual national security officials, not in Elon Musk’s office. Whatever one thinks of it, it is representative of current American orientations. First remark: the economy is constantly coming back, both as an essential factor of strategic power and as a bastion to be defended at all costs against unfair competition of all types and wherever it comes from. “The American economy is the foundation of the American Way of Life,” it is proclaimed. It’s a return to the roots: “The business of America is business,” proclaimed President Coolidge in the 1920s. Even if the expression “business” evokes for Americans much
more the Calvinist morality of redemptive activity and wealth as a sign of divine election than what is meant by this word in our suburbs…
Beyond that, the document points out, quite rightly, that since the end of the Cold War, successive presidencies had believed that the United States could henceforth dominate the entire world, in the name of a liberal globalist vision, thinking that it could impose its values everywhere. It was a ruinous program, devoid of a real strategy defining clear priorities in relation to resources that are certainly important but not unlimited. It is therefore necessary to return to a strategy that defines realistic and useful objectives and takes into account the resources available.
First question: what should the United States want, in general? Defend their borders and economy against all hostile foreign practices, from drug trafficking to immigration and disinformation. Controlling raw materials as much as possible and everywhere, an essential imperative far removed from “liberal globalization”. To keep their military forces at the forefront of the world. To defend their industrial and technological base, to remain at the forefront of scientific research. Maintaining their incomparable “Sofẗ Power”. And “restore the spiritual and cultural health of America” (not really original: we experienced this in the 50s, with McCarthyism).
The main principles are then applied to the different geographical areas. The Middle East is the subject of an astonishing irenicism, conflicts are being resolved there (thanks to Trump), and the importance of the region in terms of energy is no longer central. On the other hand, its potential for economic development is highlighted. This is in fact in line with the aspirations of the Gulf monarchies, and the theses of the Israeli government reducing all problems to the fight against terrorism. For Africa, the program is clear: to replace aid of all kinds with a trade and economic partnership, favourable to American interests, with African countries that are worth it. But not a word about the geopolitical realities, including the Chinese presence. All this seems to be based on a rather illusory commercial optimism.
As far as the Asia-Pacific is concerned, the priority is clearly to restore the trade and economic balance with China, but from a perspective that does not exclude long-term cooperation. The second axis is to ensure Taiwan’s security, for two reasons: because of its importance in the field of microprocessors, and because of its strategic position (it prevents Beijing’s unilateral control of the South China Sea, through which a third of the world’s maritime traffic passes). Allies in the region, including Japan and Australia, are being urged to seriously increase their military effort. Frankly, none of this is new, and no U.S. government has said or would say anything else. The text is also rather cautious: it does not pretend to exclude any change in Taiwan’s status, but any “unilateral” change, which has been the American position since Nixon’s visit to China in 1972.
For Europe, it is the passage that has triggered the most criticism here. But this is not at all an abandonment. The importance of the Old Continent for Washington and the American commitment in all areas, from the economy to ideology, are clearly recalled. The document is quite realistic: the war in Ukraine is causing serious economic problems and internal political tensions, it is necessary to “restore conditions of stability in Europe and strategic stability with Russia”, NATO is not called upon to expand without limits, Europeans must take their defence into their own hands and bear its cost, while remaining closely linked to the United States.
All this is not pleasant to read. But what Europeans governments are now attempting, that is calling on the Europeans to stand up against the alleged American abandonment while organising the defence against Moscow in total subordination to NATO (see a quite revealing piece “How the armies are preparing the scenarios of a clash with Russia”, Le Figaro of 20 December) is profoundly contradictory – and laughable for the Russians.
But the heart of the document is the Western Hemisphere, as a month later, on January 3, the operation to take control of Venezuela and its oil was to demonstrate: “The United States must be predominant in the Western Hemisphere as a condition of its security and prosperity – a condition that allows us to confidently impose ourselves wherever and whenever we need to in the region.” (This could now concern Greenland, where the Americans have already been the de facto masters since the last war.)
And for all this, it is necessary to eliminate, in the two Americas, all external influence in sensitive areas, including ports and infrastructure. An XXL “Monroe Doctrine”! This imperialism is obviously recurrent in American history, but now it is hardening. The triumphant liberal globalization, the “New World Order” announced by George Bush the father, is over. In fact, we are dealing with a “Fortress America” forced to retreat from its global ambitions of the 1990s – and all the more brutal. And every fortress needs a glacis: this will be, seen from Washington, the role of Europe…
Georges-Henri Soutou
Member of the Institut de France (Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques)
Photo credit: Jorge Alcala on Unsplash