The editors of the Washington Post are outraged that France has national interests and that it pursues them:
French President Emmanuel Macron might have thought he could escape turmoil at home and burnish his credentials as a global statesman by making a high-level state visit to China earlier this month. Instead, he exposed disunity in Europe over Beijing, he handed Chinese President Xi Jinping a propaganda coup, and, for good measure, he threw Taiwan under the bus by suggesting Europeans should not follow the United States in defending the island in the event of a Chinese invasion.
That’s a lot of damage from a three-day trip.
Guess what? Germany, the United Kingdom, and every other country we deem an ally has its own national interests and most of those countries pursue those interests quite single-mindedly. I wish we focused as much on our own national interests as France or Germany does.
As I have been saying for some time, I wish our foreign policy idealists understood that it’s a realist world out there. When Germany or France go along with us, it’s because they see it as in their interests to do so. When they don’t think it’s in their interests, they don’t. That’s why, for example, Germany is not doing many of the things the German leadership said it would do a year ago. They got credit for their followership a year ago when they made their pledges but they’re hedging their bets because following through on those pledges would bear costs.
Heh. Speaking of realists, and not idealists.
No, there was no Armageddon:
https://fee.org/articles/sweden-once-mocked-for-its-covid-strategy-now-has-one-of-the-lowest-covid-mortality-rates-in-europe/
https://fee.org/articles/the-new-york-times-stunning-confession-on-sweden-s-pandemic-response/
While The Lancet is stomping and holding their breath, and can’t take yes for an answer. They appear to have absolutely no clue about cost benefit, the real issue (as I pointed out as early as (April 2020) to be grappled with.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00885-0/fulltext
It is a shame that Fauci funded gain of research function, now isn’t it?
And yet, we have facilitated this behavior, by providing the defense umbrella for these folks for 60 years, and allowing them to spend on social services etc. If we didn’t want it that way could change anytime we want. And Macron would be singing a different tune. We obviously haven’t wanted it.
Drew: And yet, we have facilitated this behavior, by providing the defense umbrella for these folks for 60 years
Sixty years ago, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom were spending more than 5% of GDP on defense. When the Soviet Union collapsed, defense spending decreased for NATO, including the United States. Europe has been slow to increase spending to counter current threats, but are largely on target to reach the agreed 2% of GDP by 2024.
What’s your point, Zach? Or are you pointless? Does the thrust change?
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/EUU/european-union/military-spending-defense-budget
Drew: Does the thrust change?
Yes, it does. Europe was investing heavily in the military during the Cold War, not free-riding on the Americans, even while providing universal healthcare coverage and other social programs.
I don’t think Macron was focusing on pursuing naked national interests per se. As Europeans are uniquely adapted to doing since they have they have 27 states + EU, they play good cop, bad cop. So while Macron was playing nice, EU Commission President Von der Leyen was on the same trip playing bad cop, and followed by German FM who also played bad cop. Von der Leyen warned Xi of the consequences to giving Russia military arms.
Looking at the news, Xi may have said something that gave Macron some pause — China has taken an independent position on the Ukraine / Russia war, but negative reciprocity could apply due the European position on Taiwan to Ukraine (i.e. the more Europeans support Taiwan, the more China will support Russia), which the CCP consider an existential issue.
And Macron stated what sounds like a self interested French position but may actually apply to the US as well. Macron said “The question Europeans need to answer is it in our interest to accelerate [a crisis] on Taiwan? No….”
I personally don’t think it is in the US interest to accelerate a crisis on Taiwan either; and especially not during the biggest European War in 70 years.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/there-worldwide-run-bank-united-states-america
Some fear the Biden administration is losing control of our southern border; losing control of our decaying, crime-infested big cities; creating a recession; vilifying and needlessly destroying the fossil fuel industry while pushing suspect and subsidized “green†energy alternatives; leaving tens of billions of dollars in military equipment in Afghanistan while withdrawing our troops and abandoning an ally; stepping closer to a trip-wire in the Ukraine war, which could trigger a nuclear strike; turning on Israel over ideological issues as Turkey and others call on Arab and Muslim nations to unite and crush the Jewish State; weakening our military with one “woke†edict after another; focusing on “trans†issues at the expense of failing transportation infrastructure; cheerleading the social justice warrior takeover of our colleges and universities; and weakening the dollar (the currency much of the world depends upon).
Is it any wonder, then, that nations such as France, India, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Mexico, Brazil and others are suddenly hedging their bets by looking beyond the United States of America for partnerships and stability?
I still dont know why people want to use Sweden as an example of good mgt. Every other Nordic country performed better, by a lot, and other OECD countries like Germany did better. If you want really low death rates you look at Australia, Japan and quite a few others.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/
If you want to look at excess deaths then you also need to manage health care other than covid. AS noted in the article it doesnt look like their numbers are adjusted for demographics. So back to covid, you need to look at how they managed covid and look at deaths over time. During the first year they had a higher death rate than average. They did not take a laissez-faire approach but limited large gatherings (under 50) and kept older kids out of school among other interventions. However, once the vaccines came out they got over 80% of their population vaccinated and its after the first year where Sweden looks good.
So what we learned from Sweden is that lower levels of intervention, if actually followed (which it appears Sweden did) can have good effects but if you want to perform better than average you do need to do more. Next we learned that if you get a high percentage of people vaccinated you cut deaths way back.
As an aside, like other things this is about trade offs. Sweden accepted more covid deaths in exchange for fewer restrictions. Think it was assumed they would also have a better economic performance too, but I have never seen this documented.
Steve
“Europe was investing heavily in the military during the Cold War, not free-riding on the Americans, even while providing universal healthcare coverage and other social programs.”
The Cold War ended over 30 years ago. The major European continental countries have been free-riding since then and continue to do so. The 2% requirement, instituted in 2006, has only been met by 7 countries (The US, UK, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland) and has been a complaint by every US administration going back two decades. Hypotheticals about being “on track” are hypotheticals we’ve seen before.
As we see with the support of the war in Ukraine, the decades-long underinvestment in defense has left Europeans unable to provide significant assistance without tapping into their own small stockpiles of weapons and ammunition, which are woefully inadequate. If countries like Germany finally get above 2%, it will only be to replace donated stockpiles.
Once again, the US is doing the vast majority of the heavy lifting here, perhaps only eclipsed by Poland and the Baltics in relative terms.
As far as France and China goes, I’m mostly in agreement with Curious. That the WAPO editors complain whenever one of our allies gives a hint of not completely towing the US line, says more about the WAPO editors than it does about anything else.
France isn’t going to anchor itself to China, but neither are they going to blindly follow US China policy.
Andy: The major European continental countries have been free-riding since then and continue to do so.
Drew’s claim was 60 years, a common misunderstanding. NATO was heavily invested in defense against the Soviet Union, and all NATO countries reduced defense spending after the collapse of the Soviet Union, including the United States. That doesn’t mean Europe didn’t cut too much or been too slow to reinvest.