Europe

Populist parties are looking to make big gains in European Parliament elections. That could disrupt EU policy on issues from trade to migration.

President Trump doesn’t have much in the way of kind words for the transatlantic alliance. As a candidate, Trump called NATO “obsolete.” As president, he has reportedly asked aides why the United States should not abandon it. The reality, though, is that NATO is thriving. Funding for the U.S. military presence in Europe is increasing. NATO has put combat-ready multinational battle groups into the Baltic republics and Poland. It has a new cyberspace operations center in Belgium. Despite transatlantic fights on trade, climate change and the Iran nuclear deal, Europe and the United States agree that Russia’s Vladimir Putin is a menace and they are rising to the challenge. The same cannot be said on China. This week, Britain, traditionally the European ally most in sync with the Pentagon, reportedly brushed off threats from Washington by deciding to build parts of its fifth-generation (or 5G) wireless network with equipment from the Chinese telecom giant, Huawei. Vice President Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had urged allies to shun Huawei, suggesting that the United States would not be able to share intelligence with countries that compromised network security by buying Chinese gear. Britain has said boo to them. This British defiance follows a European pattern. Huawei has conducted 5G trials in Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey. Last month, Italy laid out the red carpet for President Xi Jinping and a 500-strong group, becoming the first Group of Seven nation to endorse China’s global influence-buying program known as the Belt and Road Initiative. During Barack Obama’s presidency, the United States urged European allies to boycott the Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Germany, France, Britain, Italy and more than a dozen smaller European states ignored U.S. pressure. It’s easy to see why transatlantic solidarity against Russia is not matched by a common China policy. Since the annexation of Crimea, Putin has posed an obvious threat to his European neighbors; in contrast, China’s habit of threatening Taiwan and turning rocky islands into fortresses seems abstract in Berlin or Paris. Since the loss of empire, Europeans have grown used to not being the global hegemons. In the United States, the fact that China will have the world’s largest economy within a few years feels altogether more disturbing. Unsurprising though it may be, this Western division over China needs to be fixed urgently. The biggest threat to liberal democracies is not stagnant economies, inequality or populism. It is that the world’s new superpower is hostile to liberal values. China’s leaders are growing more autocratic domestically, more assertive internationally and more accomplished at marshaling technology to augment state power. In the near term, Russia’s swaggering strongman may be the West’s most troublesome adversary. In the longer run, China’s patient dictatocrats present the more profound challenge. To forge a common front on China, the United States must become less arrogant. China, unlike the Soviet Union of old, is deeply integrated into the global economy. It is therefore unrealistic for the United States to demand that Europe cut commercial ties with Chinese companies such as Huawei. The Trump administration has run this experiment. It has only exposed the limits to its influence. Europe, for its part, must become less supine. The continent’s business and policy leaders sometimes insinuate that the Trump administration’s hostility to Huawei merely reflects the commercial interests of the U.S. tech lobby. They don’t reckon with the fact that, when 5G-enabled autonomous vehicles become commonplace on Western streets, a foreign power that hacks the network could turn those vehicles into deadly weapons. The Chinese state requires its companies to collaborate with it on national security. A network built on Chinese gear is obviously less safe than one built on Western gadgetry. There is a middle way, and it starts with the Trump administration fixing its own errors. Huawei is the dominant supplier of 5G equipment partly because the United States is marginalizing itself — it is set on building its network using a different part of the spectrum than that favored in other countries. Next, rather than wishfully demanding a Europe free of Huawei, the administration should focus on managing the world as it is. It should call for continuous testing and monitoring of network equipment to track down vulnerabilities. It should consider whether some parts of 5G networks are more sensitive than others. (Confusingly, experts disagree on this.) Perhaps most significant, it should insist on robust encryption of applications that run on the network. To analogize: If the 5G highway cannot be rendered totally secure, you had better navigate it in an armored vehicle. If this week’s reports are right, the decision by Britain’s National Security Council points toward this compromise. Britain apparently plans to use Huawei’s gear only outside the “core” of its network. Its cyberdefense agency has been monitoring Huawei’s equipment in the existing 4G network and has sometimes lambasted the company for supplying slipshod code; it will continue to play hardball in the future. This amounts to the sort of pragmatic arrangement that the Trump administration should welcome. So far it has not done so.

The big day was March 29. Then it was April 12. And now Europe’s powers have decreed that Britain has until Oct. 31 to decide how — or indeed whether — it would like to leave the European Union. At this rate, you may be thinking, Britain is never really going to quit. Unfortunately, the odds of a hard-line Brexit are probably increasing. The immediate consequence of the E.U.’s announcement is that Britain’s Parliament gets more time to decide what sort of Brexit it favors. But the logic that has blocked a deal so far has not been magically altered. On one side, the supposedly governing Conservative Party cannot unite behind an exit formula that would satisfy Europe’s determination to safeguard peace in Ireland. On the other side, the opposition Labour Party refuses to join Conservative moderates in backing a workable deal because it wants to destabilize the government and force an early election. Theresa May, the dogged prime minister whose defenestration has been prematurely rumored for two years, now has one foot out the window. She will keep trying to strike a deal with the top brass in the Labour Party. But even if she appears to succeed, the chances of keeping Labour’s support through the marathon of implementing legislation seem minimal. At the first opportunity, Labour is likely to make common cause with hard-line Brexiteers on the Conservative right and vote no confidence in the prime minister. If the talks with Labour’s leaders fail, May’s next move will be to consult the members of Parliament directly. This involves a cumbersome process known as “indicative votes”: MPs vote on various Brexit permutations until one commands a majority. Last time this was tried, no majority emerged for anything. But even if a second experiment produced a majority for some kind of deal, it would be tough to hold that majority together. The prime minister might yet succeed in conjuring a breakthrough: The situation is so fluid that almost anything is possible. But if she fails, she will have both feet out the window. Her mission has been to deliver a moderate Brexit; if she cannot, her unloved leadership will serve no further purpose. Local elections on May 2 are likely to deliver a rebuke to her party, and on May 23 she faces a still-greater humiliation. Britain will have to hold elections for the European Parliament, almost three years after voters resolved by referendum that they wanted out of such entanglements. So, if May can’t get a deal, what happens? With Parliament deadlocked, the next move would have to come from voters. This could take the form of a second referendum, in which case the anti-Brexit “Remain” side would be narrowly favored to win. But the majority in Parliament abhors the prospect of a second plebiscite, and the fights over the phrasing of the question and design of the vote could drag on indefinitely. Therefore, the likelier way out is an election. This is how things could get truly ugly. The Labour Party is led by professional placard carrier Jeremy Corbyn, who is anti-American, anti-capitalist and anti-European Union. Because the Labour rank and file is pro-Remain, a Labour victory might mean that Brexit is sidelined, despite Corbyn’s personal predilections. But this would be cold comfort. Labour’s leftist agenda would scare investment away from Britain as fast as the prospect of Brexit has done. More likely, Corbyn would prove too extreme to be elected. Yet if the Conservatives win, the prospects are little brighter. The party would probably fight the election under a new leader; given the leanings of Conservative Party members, that leader would probably be a hard-line Brexiteer — the front-runner is Boris Johnson, a post-truth Trumpian. Hence the danger that Britain will use its newly granted extra time to head toward a sharper break with Europe. The core problem is that, in Britain as in chunks of continental Europe, centrist politics is failing. The Labour Party has veered further left than it has been in more than three decades. The Conservatives are in thrall to a nostalgic, narrow-minded nationalism that fabricates scare stories about Europe — and that will fight to keep Brexit on the agenda even if it is thwarted in the near future. May, for all her stiff-necked clumsiness, represents the responsible but diminishing old guard. If she topples from the windowsill, Britain will miss her.

As NATO turns seventy, history's most successful multilateral alliance faces significant internal challenges. 

With new sources of uncertainty proliferating by the day, the world should brace for a broad economic slowdown or, at minimum, a lengthy period of slower growth.

History is far from over in Europe. To the contrary, it is back with a vengeance.

Test your knowledge of France, from its long alliance with the United States to its overseas territories.  

Welcome to “Women Around the World: This Week,” a series that highlights noteworthy news related to women and U.S. foreign policy. This week’s post, covering November 29 to December 5, was compiled with support from Rebecca Turkington and Ao Yin.

Test your knowledge of the United Kingdom, from Brexit to the British royal family.

As European voters look for new alternatives, Green parties are making waves across the region. In doing so, they could signal a counterweight to the populist European right and influence national and European climate policies.