Source: Global Times
[Special correspondent of Global Times in Germany, Qingmu; reporter of Global Times, Limeng, Yuwen] The latest national security strategy report released by the White House has caused a strong reaction across the Atlantic. France's Le Monde stated that the report marks a historic break, as no previous official American document had ever shown such disrespect for European allies. The EU has maintained restraint at the official level, but European diplomats have expressed disappointment through the media: "a bucket of cold water" to European countries, "worse than Vance's speech in February" ... In addition, the new mentions of China in the report have also attracted attention. Singapore's Straits Times stated that the United States' latest national security strategy report mentioned China 19 times, no longer emphasizing systemic competition with China, but instead emphasizing "rebalancing U.S.-China economic relations, prioritizing reciprocity and fairness." Experts from the Council on Foreign Relations said that the new report announced the end of the era of great power competition, and Washington will focus on economic competition with China. The European website Modern Diplomacy stated on the 7th that the report marks a major turning point in American strategic thinking. The clichés of "leading the free world," "defending global democracy," and "expanding international participation" have disappeared. Instead, the principle is that the United States must first enhance its own strength. Some analysts believe that whether this report represents an official change in American strategic intent remains to be observed.
"Europe Gets a Cold Bucket"
U.S. presidents typically issue a national security strategy report at the end of each term. The report has no legal binding force, but it has some influence on federal government budget allocation and policy priority setting. On the night of December 4, the White House released the latest version of the U.S. National Security Strategy Report, which comprehensively elaborates on the "America First" foreign policy of President Trump after his return to the White House in January, focusing on America's "core national interests" and re-adjusting America's global security priorities.
The report consists of 33 pages and states that the goal of permanent global dominance pursued by the United States after the Cold War is "fundamentally unattainable and impossible to achieve." The United States is moving away from the concept of global hegemony and shifting toward an foreign policy centered on interests and pragmatism. The report clearly states that Washington no longer pursues global hegemony, but focuses on the Western Hemisphere, considered as America's core interest area. At the same time, the United States will prevent other countries from gaining dominance globally or regionally.
The section on Europe in the report has sparked the most controversy. Le Monde stated that the report dedicates only two and a half pages to Europe, claiming that if the current trend continues, the European continent will "be unrecognizable within 20 years or less," and that "economic decline is almost insignificant compared to the more serious prospect of civilization's demise." The report lists reasons for Europe's potential "civilization demise," including declining birth rates, loss of national identity, suppression of political opposition, censorship of freedom of speech, excessive regulation, and most importantly, the issue of immigration. "In the long run, the majority of the population in certain NATO member states will no longer be of European descent," the report said. "It remains uncertain whether certain European countries still have sufficient economic and military strength to continue as reliable allies."
What further upset Europe was the U.S. report's open statement that its policy toward Europe should prioritize "helping Europe correct its current development trajectory," and that it would "cultivate resistance forces within European countries," welcoming the rise of "patriotic European parties." Le Monde stated that the implication is to split European countries, weaken the EU, and openly interfere in European affairs. The U.S. political news site Politico said that the White House report means: supporting the far-right is what makes Europe great again.
"On this presidential seal document, the United States, which has guaranteed European security for 80 years since World War II, openly insults the transatlantic alliance," reported The New York Times on the 6th. "This document is available on the White House website, and everyone can see it clearly," said Kupcans, former senior director for European affairs at the White House National Security Council. "That's why it's so hard to understand." The report said that European leaders did not make a strong public protest against this strategic document, indicating that they have become accustomed to it. EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Karas, responded to the U.S. report on the 6th, stating that the U.S. "remains our largest ally," and both sides should unite.
According to France's International Radio on the 6th, an unnamed European diplomat said that the tone of the White House strategy report on Europe was worrying, even worse than Vance's speech in Munich in February. The Wall Street Journal stated that the U.S. report portrays European countries as selfish and declining powers, "which is indeed a bucket of cold water for European countries."
19 Mentions of China
The Council on Foreign Relations website published an article on the 6th inviting six experts to interpret the latest version of the White House national security strategy report.
Rebecca Lissner, a senior researcher at the Council, stated that the national security strategy report during Trump's first term revolved around the core issue of great power competition between the United States and China and Russia, building bipartisan consensus, but this core issue no longer exists. The latest report describes China and the U.S. as "nearly equal relationships," and the primary objective of Washington's policy towards China is "to establish an economically mutually beneficial and win-win relationship with Beijing." Discussions about Russia are vague. Replacing the previous perspective of great power competition is a highly ideological framework reflecting the president's domestic priorities.
"The great power competition with China is dead," said David Sachs, a senior researcher on Asian security at the Council. With the release of the latest national security strategy, the era of great power competition has officially ended. The new report places geopolitics in a secondary position and puts economics in the "final interest" position; the national security report only mentions China on page 19, where China is viewed as an economic competitor rather than a "systemic challenge." The Straits Times stated that China was mentioned 19 times in the report.
Sachs said that the most important thing is that the Indo-Pacific section in the new U.S. national security strategy centers on China. "The value of other countries in the region lies only in whether they can help the U.S. win the economic competition with China and contain conflicts with Beijing. Even the U.S. treaty ally the Philippines is not mentioned."
The wording regarding China in the latest U.S. national security strategy report differs from previous ones, but Professor Li Haidong from the School of Diplomacy told the Global Times on the 7th that this does not mean the U.S. has abandoned its original strategic competitive mindset, but rather changed the language expression and key areas of action. If one carefully reads the parts of the U.S. report regarding the Western Hemisphere and technology and economic fields, one will find that although the report does not explicitly state that it wants to compete with China, it repeatedly emphasizes in the text that in the fields of technology and supply chains in the Western Hemisphere, those extraneous competing countries or factors threatening American interests should be effectively excluded. This message is very clear, indicating that the strategic competitive mindset towards China still exists, but the competition area has shifted from global to focus on the Western Hemisphere, which is a significant change.
Experts: Major Adjustment in Diplomatic Philosophy
The U.S. website The Hill reported that on the 6th, several prominent Democratic members of Congress strongly criticized the government's national security strategy report, calling it weakened America's influence abroad, alienated allies, and made enemies stronger.
"Dear American friends, Europe is your closest ally, not your problem," Polish Prime Minister Tusk wrote on social media and called on the U.S. and Europe to jointly deal with Russia. However, in the U.S. report, the EU is accused of ignoring the "vast majority of Europeans' desire for peace" and hindering the U.S. efforts to end the Ukraine crisis. The report refers to quickly ending the Ukraine crisis through negotiations as "a core U.S. interest," stating that the U.S. needs to "rebuild strategic stability with Russia" and "end the perception of NATO as a permanent expansion alliance."
According to RIA Novosti on the 7th, Russian President's Press Secretary Peskov stated that the adjustment of the U.S. national security strategy "is consistent with Moscow's vision in many aspects."
The U.S. report proposes "the Western Hemisphere first," declaring that "the U.S. must maintain primacy in the Western Hemisphere," strengthening military presence in Latin America, ensuring the U.S. "continuous access to key strategic locations." In contrast, the report downgrades the role of the Middle East in U.S. foreign policy, proposing to avoid getting involved in "perpetual wars" that cost the U.S. a lot in the Middle East.
Li Haidong stated that this report clearly reveals the governing philosophy of Trump himself and the "America First" faction. It is a typical version of nationalism, completely different from previous globalist versions. Therefore, it can be said that this is a major adjustment in America's diplomatic philosophy since the end of World War II, from isolationism to globalism. However, whether this adjustment can succeed in practice remains highly uncertain.
Li Haidong believes that this report highlights the return of American foreign policy to a deep historical tradition, trying to adjust America's strategic direction using the "Monroe Doctrine" concept. In a way, this is an interesting phenomenon - the American-style foreign policy, which uses 19th-century American diplomatic concepts to plan the overall diplomacy and security blueprint for the 21st century. This can also be seen as an embodiment of the U.S. acknowledging its relative decline in power.
Original: toutiao.com/article/7581248732721594920/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author alone.