Just after the E.U. had
successfully negotiated (mostly) free-trade treaties with India and a few South
American state-level countries, the E.U. and U.S. were at odds on the ownership
and control of Greenland to such an extent that the NATO alliance was strained
if not fraught. The resulting power-vacuum with respect to military alliances could
be filled by the E.U. strengthening its federal foreign policy and defense
powers and forming a military alliance with India and even South America in
order to put less reliance and thus pressure on the weakened NATO alliance. This is not to say that new military alliances
would necessarily or even probably form; rather, such alliances would be in
line with the dynamics and logic of power itself at the international level. I contend
that the unbalanced balance of federal-state power in foreign policy and
defense in the E.U. was a major contributory factor of the dominance of the
U.S. in NATO.
U.S. President’s politically
aggressive threats regarding making Greenland a U.S. territory (but not a
state) made the American dominance in NATO suddenly unsavory to the Europeans. At
the end of January, 2026, the former European Council president Charles Michel
was unusually blunt by European (but not American Midwestern) standards. “NATO
chief Mark Rutte should stop being an ‘American agent’ and unite the fraught military
alliance in the face of the United States’ ‘hostile rhetoric’ and ‘intimidation’,”
Michel told Euronews.[1]
Whereas his words, hostile rhetoric and intimidation, applied to President Trump
were nothing new; it was the expression, American agent, that stood out. Even
though the dominance of the mighty American military power in NATO was hardly
news, that Michel said it out loud signaled the depth of the Europeans’
displeasure at Trump’s overt messaging on Greenland. Michel was just as blunt
about Rutte himself. “I want to be clear, Mark Rutte is disappointing and I’m
losing confidence. . . . I’m not expecting Mark Rutte to be an American agent.
I’m expecting Mark to work for unity within NATO,” Michel said.[2]
Rutte’s claim that Trump was the “Daddy”
of NATO was admittedly over the top (Trump’s ego hardly needed the accolade of
Daddy), but Michel’s criticism is weaker concerning Rutte’s efforts to find “an
off-ramp for Trump to climb down on his recent threats to trigger a trade war”
with the E.U. over differences on Greenland.[3]
Dissipating the related economic and political escalations between countries in
NATO served the interests of unity in NATO, so Rutte deserves credit for
providing Trump with an off-ramp.
Michel also claimed that the E.U.
had been a “very loyal partner” to the U.S. and thus did not deserve Trump’s
threats.[4]
Instead of going on to analyze the relative validity of the positions of the
E.U. and U.S. on which continent should own and control Greenland, the road
less travelled by analysts concerns the argument that the E.U. would be more
likely to reach a parity of power with the U.S. in NATO were the E.U. states
willing to transfer more governmental sovereignty to the federal level in
foreign policy and defense. This would include (but not be limited to) moving off
reliance on the principle of unanimity to hold votes in the Council by
qualified-majority. As the executive branch, the Commission would of course
have more shared and exclusive competencies (i.e., enumerated powers) in
foreign affairs and militarily (with control over more than the 60,000 troops).
As in the U.S., both the states and the Union would have armies, and the
Commission could temporarily borrow the state militias as needed. That the
state governments have direct power in the European Council and the Council of
Ministers, whereas the American states are only indirectly represented
in the U.S. Senate, means that the E.U. would be less likely to abuse its
federal police and even the federal borrowing of state armies as Trump was able
to do.
Moreover, that the U.S. had
become so violent, in part due to the astounding corruption in local police
departments and in part due to the Trump administration is itself a reason why
E.U. citizens and their elected representatives have good reason to bolster
defense at the federal level. Gone were the days when America stood for the
little guys rather than the bullies in the world. Unfortunately, the language
that speaks most clearly to Trump, Netanyahu, and Putin is that of
counter-force. Were the E.U. not so bottom-heavy militarily (i.e., reliant on
the state armies), perhaps a federal force could have gone into Ukraine and
Gaza to push the aggressors back. Might-Makes-Right would have suffered a
set-back rather than stand to become the default in post post-World War II
global order. Therefore, the Europeans could stand to do some navel gazing on
why the U.S. has been so dominate in NATO.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
