Help Us, Europe- You’re Our Only Hope

Since his inauguration, President Trump has made it clear that American foreign policy will be based on the idea of “America first.”  What that looks like exactly is unclear, given the sometimes contradictory messages from various administration officials.  What we do know, however, is that America’s role as a global leader has now diminished so much that US foreign policy is an example of how NOT to approach global issues.  This is especially evident in a number of areas, including the UN and development assistance, NATO, and climate change.

The UN and Development Assistance
President Trump’s FY2018 budget “proposes that the Department of State examine options to: (a) reduce the levels of international organizations’ budgets, (b) reduce U.S. assessment rates, and/or (c) not pay U.S. assessments in full.” (p. 71 of Major Savings and Reforms: Budget of the U.S. Government“)  This would lead to an overall reduction of $786 million for international organizations contributions.

Additionally, in January 2017, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), introduced H.R. 193- American Sovereignty Restoration Act, which called for the US to withdraw from the UN.  While the bill most likely will not become a law, it does illustrate that some members of Congress are taking the “America first” mentality to a whole new level.

If the US does not fulfill its responsibilities with the UN, then it falls upon Europe to fill the void.  On May 17, 2017, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres spoke at the European Parliament and said that “A strong and united Europe is an absolutely fundamental pillar of a strong and effective United Nations.”  This is especially important given the White House’s current attitude.

When it comes to official development assistance (ODA), the US has consistently fallen short of the target of .7% of GNI.  In 2016, the US spent .18% of GNI on ODA, placing it eighth worst among OECD countries; however, it was number one in overall spending with $33.59 billion.  Imagine how much good could have been done had the US met the .7% target.  Unfortunately, the outlook is not promising, as President Trump’s budget would eliminate $2.5 billion in ODA (p. 67 of Major Savings and Reforms).

Screen Shot 2017-05-31 at 10.41.18 AM

Even though the US fell short, six of our European allies met or exceeded the .7% target, with Norway leading the way at 1.11%.  For those six countries, the total amount adds up to $54.65 billion, well above the US amount.  The irony here is that while President Trump has chastised our NATO allies for not spending 2% of GDP on defense, the US has not met the target for ODA.

NATO
As for NATO, President Trump spoke in Brussels on May 25, 2017, at the unveiling of the Article 5 and Berlin Wall memorials.  In his remarks, the President pretty much scolded our NATO allies:

“The NATO of the future must include a great focus on terrorism and immigration, as well as threats from Russia and on NATO’s eastern and southern borders.  These grave security concerns are the same reason that I have been very, very direct with Secretary Stoltenberg and members of the Alliance in saying that NATO members must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations, for 23 of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they’re supposed to be paying for their defense.

This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States.  And many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years and not paying in those past years.  Over the last eight years, the United States spent more on defense than all other NATO countries combined.  If all NATO members had spent just 2 percent of their GDP on defense last year, we would have had another $119 billion for our collective defense and for the financing of additional NATO reserves.

We should recognize that with these chronic underpayments and growing threats, even 2 percent of GDP is insufficient to close the gaps in modernizing, readiness, and the size of forces.  We have to make up for the many years lost.  Two percent is the bare minimum for confronting today’s very real and very vicious threats.  If NATO countries made their full and complete contributions, then NATO would be even stronger than it is today, especially from the threat of terrorism.” 

The picture below sums up the response by the other NATO leaders in attendance.

NATO Leaders Smirk
Photo from Deutsche Welle. http://www.dw.com/en/some-nato-leaders-smirk-others-support-trumps-tough-nato-message/a-38999984

If that wasn’t enough, Trump also pushed the prime minister of Montengro out of the way during the meeting.

A few days after the meeting, Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, said, “The times in which we could completely rely on others are over to a certain extent. That is what I experienced in the last few days… That is why I can only say: We Europeans must really take our fate into our own hands.”

After the trip, Press Secretary Sean Spicer remarked that “the President is acting to strengthen alliances, to form new partnerships, and to rebuild America’s standing in the world.”  The reality, of course, is that threatening to cut funds to the UN and alienating allies weakens alliances and demolishes America’s standing in the world.

Climate Change
President Trump and the White House also have an abysmal record on climate change.  According to the White House website, “President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule.”  His budget calls “to eliminate funding in 2018 related to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and its two precursor Climate Investment Funds (CIFs)” (p. 75 of Major Savings and Reforms).  Furthermore, the budget reduces funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by 31.4% down to $5.7 billion (p. 42 of Budget of the U.S. Government: A New Foundation for American Greatness).  Additionally, the President has made it clear he is no fan of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate.  As this piece is being written, it is expected Trump will announce the U.S. is withdrawing from the deal.

Across the Atlantic, however, our European allies are committed to fighting climate change.  At a recent UNFCCC conferenceMiguel Arias Cañete, the EU Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy, said, “We came here to Bonn to advance our work on the rules and instruments to implement the Paris Agreement. We leave Bonn with steadfast progress in many areas. And while much work still lies ahead of us, the cooperative talks and the tangible results show once again the unwavering determination of all of us to turn our commitments into real action.”  Quite the opposite from President Trump.  The EU has also adopted a 2020 Climate & Energy Package and a 2030 Climate & Energy Framework.

Conclusion
President Trump’s “America First” foreign policy has left a vacuum of global leadership that could potentially be filled by the EU.  This is a perfect opportunity for bodies like the European External Action Service and EuropeAid to step up and show the world what European cooperation and coordination can accomplish.  For the UN to succeed, and for progress to be made on the Sustainable Development Goals (one of which is climate action), Europe is our only hope.

Thanks for reading.

Advertisements

Constitutional Comparison: Germany and the US

As I was going through my RSS feed this morning, I came across this article from Deutsche Welle on Germany’s Basic Law.  As I read through it, the first thing that struck me was the fact that the very first article in Germany’s constitution discusses human dignity.  This led me to take a closer look at the Grundgesetz, and after further reading, I decided to make a lesson out of it for my class on U.S. government and politics.  We had already studied the purposes of constitutions in general and the US Constitution earlier this semester, so I wanted to compare the two constitutions.

Students noticed a number of differences, among them: 1) Germany put basic rights first, whereas the US put them as amendments; 2) Germany’s constitution is much more in depth than than the US’ (Germany has 141 articles, the US has 7); 3) Germany has an article about the flag, the US does not; 4) Germany has “compulsory military and alternative civilian service,” whereas the US military is volunteer.  We also discussed Germany’s electoral system, even though it’s not explicitly described in the Basic Law.  Out of all these ideas, however, we spent the most time discussing Article 1.1 of the Basic Law- “Human dignity shall be inviolable.  To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.”  The US constitution has something similar in the Preamble with, “promote the general Welfare.”

We started first by talking about dignity and what that meant.  After that, we looked into the extent to which the governments of both countries fulfilled the idea of human dignity and general welfare.  Since my student charity, VAHSAid, just held an event this weekend to raise awareness of child poverty and food insecurity, we looked for child poverty rates in both countries.  According to the OECD, the latest rate for Germany is 9.8%, and for the US it’s 20.5%.

Screen Shot 2017-05-23 at 1.10.19 PM

Other indicators we looked at (also from the same OECD page):

Key characteristics of parental leave systems (total paid leave available to mothers)- Germany: 58 weeks; US: 0 weeks

Screen Shot 2017-05-23 at 1.30.51 PM

Public spending on family benefits (in per cent of GDP)- Germany: 3.03; US: 1.13

Screen Shot 2017-05-23 at 1.31.59 PM

Public spending on early childhood education and care (in per cent of GDP)- Germany: 0.6; US: 0.3

Screen Shot 2017-05-23 at 1.32.53 PM

Infant mortality (Deaths per 1,000 live births)- Germany: 3.2; US: 6.0

Screen Shot 2017-05-23 at 1.33.45 PM

After all was said and done, a couple of student observations stood out to me: 1) “Germany takes democracy to a whole new level,” 2) “Germany seems much more about community,” and 3) Students felt Germany’s Basic Law was less ambiguous than the US Constitution and wondered if that would lead to less legal battles or political controversy.

While the original purpose of the lesson was to compare the two constitutions, I am pleased that it led to discussions about issues other than the structure of the governments.  This isn’t to say Germany is some sort of utopia*; however, it does illustrate the need for American politicians to begin emphasizing human dignity in our policies.

Thanks for reading.

*Full disclosure: I was stationed in Germany for 2 1/2 years and have a deep appreciation for the German language, food, beer, and soccer (#NurSGE).

Lesson Plan: European Cooperation and Integration

Four years ago I created a lesson plan on the origins of European economic cooperation and integration for the University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for European Studies.  Since today is Europe Day, I thought I would update it and share it here.  Feel free to use it as is or adapt it for your own needs.

Title of Lesson Plan: The Origins of European Economic Cooperation and Integration

Grades: 9-12

Brief Description: In this lesson, students will learn about the arguments made in favor of European economic cooperation and integration after the Second World War.

Time: 2-3 days

Objectives: By the end of the lesson, students will be able to:

  • evaluate the arguments made for economic cooperation and integration
  • synthesize the information to create their own argument about economic cooperation and integration

Materials Needed:

Directions:

  1. Day One: Students will read and the historical background piece, “The Origins of the Schuman Plan.”  The instructor will answer any clarifying questions and add any relevant information pertinent to the curriculum (i.e. information on Europe between 1914 and 1945).  For Day Two, assign students the “Marshall Plan speech” and the “Letter from Jean Monnet to Robert Schuman.”
  2. Day Two: Hand out the discussion guide and discuss the first two sources.  The instructor will want to address some of the more important points of the sources.  For Day Three, assign students the “Schuman Declaration” and “The Ruhr has replaced the United States as France’s main coal supplier.”
  3. Day Three: Discuss the last two sources.  The instructor will want to address some of the more important points of the sources.  Assign the Big Picture Questions and collect the discussion guide when complete.

Assessment: The assessment for this lesson is the “Discussion Guide.”

Extension: Students may want to examine some of the current issues surrounding the EU (Eurozone, refugee crisis, Brexit, etc.) and discuss whether or not economic cooperation and integration is still worth it.

Educational Content Standards (WI Model Academic Standards):

  • History, B.12.2 Analyze primary and secondary sources related to a historical question to evaluate their relevance, make comparisons, integrate new information with prior knowledge, and come to a reasoned conclusion
  • History, B.12.8 Recall, select, and explain the significance of important people, their work, and their ideas in the areas of political and intellectual leadership, inventions, discoveries, and the arts, within each major era of Wisconsin, United States, and world history

Thanks for reading.

Sweden’s Success at Promoting its Values

Last year, I wrote a post comparing the US with Scandinavia, and while the statistics I found impressed me, Sweden continues to make the case for being one of the most amazing countries in the world.  First, Sweden has made a considerable contribution to international relations with its feminist foreign policy.  Second, anybody in the world can now call a random Swede and talk about pretty much anything.  Even though the latter is lighthearted in nature, both are two examples of Sweden’s success at promoting its values.

Feminist Foreign Policy
FM Margot Wallström heads up Sweden’s feminist foreign policy, explained as the following:

Equality between women and men is a fundamental aim of Swedish foreign policy. Ensuring that women and girls can enjoy their fundamental human rights is both an obligation within the framework of our international commitments, and a prerequisite for reaching Sweden’s broader foreign policy goals on peace, and security and sustainable development. (Government Offices of Sweden)

While FM Wallström has been leading the way for two years now, it was a lecture she gave recently in Brussels that really moved me.  During her speech she argued that we need to create more opportunities for women to be involved in decision-making processes, including in national parliaments and in diplomatic negotiations.  She also proposed that a feminist foreign can help improve the lives of women and girls around the world.  Anybody familiar with the Sustainable Development Goals (and previous Millennium Development Goals), knows that gender equality (SDG 5) is crucial for eradicating poverty and making the world a better place.

What made the speech even more memorable was that five of my brightest female students joined me to watch it.  It was an absolute joy to talk (and tweet) with them about FM Wallström’s remarks; in fact, it was probably one of my favorite moments in my fourteen-year teaching career.  At one point I tweeted a picture of them watching the speech, and much to our surprise, the Permanent Representation of Sweden to the EU used it as the header for their Storify of the lecture.  My students were so inspired by her (as was I) that they decided to plan and host a workshop at our school on empowering women and girls.  Surely this as a sign that Sweden’s feminist foreign policy is making a difference and resonates with a global audience.

You can watchFM Wallström’s March 14 speech and subsequent Q+A in the video below.

The Swedish Number
The Swedish Tourist Association launched the Swedish Number on April 6, as a way to promote Sweden around the world.  Anybody can dial the number and be connected to a random Swede to talk about anything; at one point, even PM Stefan Löfven answered phone calls.

I wanted to find out what all the buzz was about, so I decided to call the number myself.  I got connected to Emil (sp?) in Stockholm.  He was at work and said that he and his officemate had already taken 3-4 calls since the Swedish Number started.  I asked him why he signed up, and he said that it was a cool concept.  He also liked the way it gave Swedes to reach out to others.  I asked if he had heard of Wisconsin, which he had but he wasn’t quite sure where we’re located.  I also wanted to find out what he thought of FM Wallström and Sweden’s feminist foreign policy.  He said that he fully supports it, as do most of the Swedes he knows.  Before I ended our conversation, I asked what he wanted my students and other Americans to know about Sweden.  He responded by talking about Sweden’s strong record on the environment and encouraged my students to make eco-friendly decisions.  All in all, it was a great five minutes.

Here’s the video the Swedish Tourist Association put out to promote the Swedish Number.

Conclusion
Sweden is doing an amazing job using its soft power to promote its values.  I’m not saying Sweden is perfect, but I definitely understand why people want to move there.

If you’ve called the Swedish Number, or you’re a Swedish phone ambassador, I would love to hear about your experience.

Finally, what are your thoughts on Sweden’s feminist foreign policy?  Is it a new approach that other countries should emulate?

Thanks for reading.

Lowlights of a Congressional Hearing on the Refugee Crisis

On November 4, the House Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats held a hearing titled, “Challenge to Europe: The Growing Refugee Crisis.”  The full hearing is below (it begins roughly 59 minutes into the video).

Going into it I thought I would hear members of the committee talk about how the U.S. could cooperate with our European allies to alleviate their burden and what we would do to address the crisis.  Instead, I heard Congressmen resort to fearmongering and partisanship.

In his opening statement, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), said that if the flow of refugees went unchecked, “it will change the fundamental nature of European countries.”  He went on to add that as a result of the influx of refugees, “what we are witnessing is the destruction of Western Civilization.”  After that he focused on violence and extremism, but at no point did he discuss what the United States was doing to help, nor did he offer possible solutions to the crisis.  For Rohrabacher, the refugee crisis is not a humanitarian issue; instead, it is about preserving Western culture and stemming the flow of the barbarian hordes.

His colleague, Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX), began his statement by pointing out that not all of the refugees are from Syria and that some may have “other motives as well.”  The problem with this line of thinking is that a refugee, no matter where they are from, is still a refugee and deserves humanitarian assistance.  The U.S. cannot say that only refugees from certain countries deserve our help.  Additionally, the scare tactic that they could be coming with sinister intentions is unfounded and quite frankly, ridiculous.

Rep. Poe also mentioned that Hungary, which has built a border fence and used tear gas and water cannons on refugees, is only trying to protect its national sovereignty.  He went on to say “the United States, rather than trying to understand the situation in Hungary, even last week the U.S. ambassador dressed down the Hungarians, for what the State Department believed was not the right course in dealing with migrants.  That does nothing to help our relationship with Hungary, a NATO ally.”  First, does Poe really believe the State Department and other American government officials are not trying to understand the situation?  Really?  Second, it is unclear what Poe is referring to in regards to Ambassador Bell, although it is probably her speech from October 28 titled, “We Will Build a Stringer Bridge.”  In the speech, Bell address numerous areas of cooperation with Hungary but also mentions issues of concern, notably corruption, a free civil society, freedom of the press, and the refugee crisis.  Countries that are truly allies should be able to express concern about issues; keeping quiet only exacerbates the problems.

Rep. Rohrabacher also jumped on the Hungary bandwagon, stating that it has been a “tremendous friend and asset to the peace and stability of the world.”  He went on to take a jab at the White House, saying it should stop complaining over every little thing they disagree with.  I’m sorry, but those issues of concern are not “little things.”  For somebody who claims to be “a most forceful spokesman for human rights and democracy around the world,” Rohrabacher’s words seem contradictory.

Rohrabacher continues to praise Hungary and resorts to fearmongering- “Hungary was totally justified in what it is doing to try to stem the flow, and frankly if our European allies are not willing to stem the flow of large numbers of people who are not native to their territory, they will lose their territory.”  Basically, this U.S. congressman just gave his support to the xenophobic far-right throughout Europe.  That’s right, if you don’t keep non-Europeans out, you will lose your country.

The only highlight came during Rep. Albio Sires‘ (D-NJ) opening statement.  In it, he proposed the U.S. should look to the root causes of migration and “for a political solution to the war in Syria.”  Rep. Sires went on to say that the world looks to the U.S. “to lead when it comes to the refugee resettlement.”  The problem, of course, is that we are not providing that leadership.  We have fallen far short in resettling refugees from the crisis; 10,000 pales in comparison to the over 1 million in Lebanon and over 2 million in Turkey.  Fortunately, he went on to add that the U.S. “can do much more,” and that we must “provide assistance and increased coordination to our European allies to help them cope with the number of migrants and refugees.”

Besides the close-minded scare tactics and pandering to Hungary exhibited by Reps. Poe and Rohrabacher, the other concern I had about this hearing is that out of the thirteen members of this subcommittee, only five showed up (Reps. Weber and Frankel make appearances during the questioning of the two witnesses).  If the refugee crisis is truly the largest migrant crisis the world has known, as was pointed out during the hearing, then where were the other members?  Wouldn’t we want “all hands on deck” to address this serious issue and from a humanitarian response to help our European allies?  (It should be noted that one member was absent due to a heart attack.)

My fear is that absurd sentiments like those from Reps. Poe and Rohrabacher will win the day and influence policy to the point where the U.S. fails to act and give the necessary assistance so desperately needed.

Thanks for reading.