DAVOS, January 20, 2024 – A growing sense of disillusionment wiht the post-World War II international order is taking hold, as evidenced by a speech delivered by Canadian Prime Minister Mark carney at the world Economic Forum.Carney drew a parallel to a 1978 essay by Václav Havel, the Czech playwright and future president, about a greengrocer who displays a “Workers of the World, Unite!” sign not out of belief, but as a performative act of conformity.
Europe’s Shifting Stance: Is the U.S.-Led Order Crumbling?
Table of Contents
A crisis over Greenland and escalating tariffs reveal a widening gap between the United States and its allies.
- Prime Minister Carney likened the current international order to a symbolic performance,questioning its genuine adherence to shared principles.
- The Trump management’s actions, including tariffs and questioning commitments to NATO, have exposed vulnerabilities in the long-standing alliance.
- The dispute over Greenland highlighted a meaningful divergence in strategic priorities between the U.S.and Europe.
- European nations are increasingly taking self-reliant steps to bolster their own security, signaling a potential shift away from reliance on U.S. protection.
“For seventy-five years, we’ve been putting up a good show,” Carney stated. This leadership also underpinned NATO, fostering an unprecedented period of peace.
What is the current state of the post-World War II international order? The order, while imperfect, offered more benefits than drawbacks, leading Canada and its European allies to “place the sign in the window,” Carney explained.
A Shift in U.S. Policy Under the trump Administration
However, the first year of Donald Trump’s second term brought that downside into sharp focus. Last April, on “Liberation Day,” Trump announced a twenty-percent tariff on goods from European Union members, declaring, “They rip us off.” His approach to the war in Ukraine signaled a sympathy for Vladimir Putin and suggested Europe should not rely on substantial U.S. support. Furthermore, after New Year’s, following the deployment of U.S. troops to Venezuela with the aim of removing President Nicolás Maduro,Trump asserted,”I don’t need international law.”
The Greenland Crisis: A Stark Illustration of Diverging Paths
Perhaps no event better illustrated the growing rift between the U.S. and Europe than the dispute over Greenland, an autonomous Arctic territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. For a year, Trump expressed his desire to acquire the island, citing its strategic military location and abundant rare earth minerals. He argued that only the U.S. could adequately defend Greenland against potential threats from Russia and China, telling Congress, “We’re going to get it one way or the other.” This action represented a threat by a key NATO member to seize territory from another.
Initially,Denmark and other NATO members attempted to appease Trump by pledging increased resources to the Arctic,building on a 1951 agreement allowing the U.S.to maintain military installations in Greenland. europe, for the past year, has engaged in flattery and transactional dealmaking-a strategy that has previously yielded results with Trump.At a NATO summit in June in The Hague, this approach largely succeeded, with states agreeing to spend five percent of their GDP on defense, prompting Trump to call the summit “tremendous.” Though, the issue of Greenland remained unresolved.
“You defend ownership,” Trump said in early January. “You don’t defend leases.”
A European Response and Escalating Tensions
Later that month, denmark and several other European countries deployed troops to Greenland for military exercises, ostensibly to demonstrate their commitment to safeguarding the territory from Russia and China, but also as a clear message to the U.S. “The fact that Europe felt it had to deploy a trip-wire force against the one power that, for generations, was seen as providing the ultimate trip-wire force for Europe’s defense is a complete reversal of our entire understanding of the world,” said Fabrice Pothier, a former director of policy planning at NATO. Trump responded by announcing additional tariffs-rising to twenty-five percent-that would remain in effect until a U.S. acquisition of Greenland was finalized.
