European leaders should be impartial on US elections
https://arab.news/49fg8
European leaders are effectively taking part in the upcoming US presidential election. Throughout their statements, they are implying direct support for Vice President Kamala Harris against former President Donald Trump. One main discussion point or criticism is doubting Trump’s commitment to the transatlantic alliance and, more specifically, NATO. Not a week goes by without a European leader or pundit saying that catastrophe will ensue for the alliance in case of a Trump victory. They assume Trump will give up Ukraine to Russia and that war will spread across Europe. Hence, this implies to American voters that instability and chaos will reign in international relations with a Trump victory. This is both wrong and dangerous.
The first point is that Europeans should not get involved in giving opinions when it comes to US elections, or any elections for that matter. This bears a true risk for European relations with the US and goes against the interests of both.
This was evident after Trump’s remarks at a South Carolina campaign event in February, when he implied that the US might not support specific NATO members if they failed to fulfill their defense budget obligations. Olaf Scholz, the chancellor of Germany, and other European officials responded angrily. It is very clear that Trump’s message was conveyed to a local audience and was used to imply that the US would not waste its resources. European leaders could have chosen to let it slide, so to speak, understanding the domestic nature of the message. Yet, they described Trump’s declarations as “irresponsible and dangerous,” adding that this would advance Russia's objectives and jeopardize European security.
Criticism of Trump is merely a useful tool to divert attention from the tough questions and real priorities
Khaled Abou Zahr
On the substance, why should Europeans dislike what Trump stated? His approach is clear and it has been already said. What Trump put forward was for European countries to pay their fair share for their own defense. It was not a disavowing of NATO. In fact, it was quite the opposite: it was a request to commit by means and not words. I do not see this as going against the principles of the transatlantic alliance. It is the best deterrent, as it shows alignment with the US without interference in its electoral process.
I have a lot of admiration for Thierry Breton, the European commissioner for internal markets and services, as he is pushing for a strong Europe and with great determination on what is key for its future — technology. Yet, the letter he sent to X ahead of Elon Musk’s interview with Trump, in which he warned about the spreading of “harmful content,” was unfortunate. The confusion was later clarified, but it showed how much officials within European institutions and even national ones push an anti-Trump narrative.
The same is also channeled through European and American media outlets and this will create anti-US sentiment in the case that Trump wins. This is once again dangerous during these volatile times. And it creates more division above anything else.
I believe European leaders should stay neutral and focus on what is important. They have a historical opportunity, if not a necessity, to build a common defense. And here the biggest danger is not the divisions in the transatlantic alliance but within Europe itself. The dilemma of national sovereignty versus European sovereignty is hampering efforts, especially when it comes to defense and security. This is why criticism of Trump is merely a useful tool to divert attention from the tough questions and real priorities.
All these declarations are a broader sign that ideological confrontation is back in play across the West
Khaled Abou Zahr
Moreover, European leaders keep implying that Trump will cozy up to Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping at the expense of Europe. Here too, these declarations are aimed at the domestic US public. This is also wrong and impacts the election process by insinuating that birds of a feather flock together, especially as Trump’s political opponents have branded his election as a risk to democracy. This contributes to inflaming relations between Europe and the US in case of a Trump victory. Moreover, on the substance, Trump’s approach to Putin and Xi is a pragmatic and smart one. It is about showing respect, while showing total determination in case of a conflict.
All these declarations are nevertheless a broader sign that ideological confrontation is back in play across the West. It pierces through nations and we are now seeing a broader positioning among the same political families or allies, from the US to Europe and beyond. We cannot help but notice that Emmanuel Macron and Scholz, for example, are closer to Harris, whereas Viktor Orban and Giorgia Meloni align more with Trump. Yet, on both sides, domestic interference should be avoided, especially when it comes to military and defense topics. It is this division and the constant doubts between partners that reflect weakness and encourage expansionist behaviors.
The reality for Europe is that, when it comes to deterrence and relations with the US, any leader who saw Trump rise after the attempt on his life last month and say “Fight, Fight, Fight” will know that messing with the US and the transatlantic alliance is a bad business. It is a bigger deterrent than a nuclear one. And this is something they should remember and preserve.
- Khaled Abou Zahr is the founder of the investment platform SpaceQuest Ventures, CEO of EurabiaMedia and editor of Al-Watan Al-Arabi.
