Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
—George Santayana
In July 1994, my wife and I took our children on an “educational journey” to Normandy, France. That year we commemorated the fiftieth anniversary of Operation Overlord, the Allied invasion of Nazi-occupied France. D-Day launched the armies of the United States, Britain, and Canada, together with forces in exile from France, Poland, and many other European nations, in the decisive battle against the Nazis in Europe. It was a brilliant and daring operation that, at the cost of thousands of lives, sounded the death knell for the Nazi empire in the West.
On this July day in 1994, the invasion beaches were an image of peace and tranquillity. There were even holiday-makers and swimmers enjoying the sun, sand, and sea on Omaha Beach, the deadliest of the landing zones, where the sand was ripped up by bombs and bullets and colored red by blood on June 6, 1944. However, we were not there for leisure, but to remember the brave soldiers who, fifty years earlier, had sacrificed so much for our freedom. We drove from beach to beach, remembering the famous names: Sword, Juno, Gold, Omaha, Utah. At the descent to every beach there is a monument to the brave men who paid the ultimate price in the landings.
As a Dane, I was proud to find a Danish monument located a few hundred yards from Utah Beach. It pays homage to the eight hundred Danish sailors who, although they did not land on the beaches, contributed greatly to the success of the D-Day landings. On June 6, 1944, thirty-one Danish ships, twenty-four of them flying the Danish flag, took part in the landings under British command. But the many war cemeteries made the strongest impression, one that we will never forget: the thousands of white crosses in straight rows, a testimony to the huge losses that the struggle for freedom cost.
Seventeen years later, I had the great honor to meet some of the veterans of World War II. As secretary-general of NATO, I attended the commemoration of Victory in Europe day on May 8, 2011, at the national World War II memorial in Washington, DC. Few of those veterans are still with us, and they are getting on in years, but if they can, they still show up to commemorate the end of the most brutal and devastating war the world has ever seen. In my remarks I paid tribute to the veterans: “You defended the freedom of Europe. You made it possible for future generations to enjoy peace and democracy. We thank you.” I cannot but deeply respect and honor the burdens and sacrifices carried by the United States and its people to promote freedom, preserve peace, and create better opportunities for mankind at this, the most pivotal and dangerous moment in human history.
But in my speech, I not only paid tribute to the brave servicemen and women who fought their way across Europe not to subjugate it, but to give it back to the forces of democracy and freedom: I drew the lesson of the conflict, because it seemed to me that to forget that lesson is to risk throwing away the very gains they fought and died for. A saying attributed to Spanish American philosopher George Santayana runs, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it,” and for me, the lesson we have to learn from our history is clear. As I said in my memorial speech: “The Second World War brought home what we should have already known: that the security of America and Europe is indivisible.”
It would be tempting to view the two great oceans that flank the United States as a defense against any adversary, but it would simply be wrong. Two generations ago, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the subsequent German declaration of war on the United States, and the bellicose German maritime operations in the Atlantic made it crystal clear to the Americans that the two oceans were no protection at all. And the Nazi blitzkrieg and rapid occupation of most of Europe made clear to the American people that the rise of an authoritarian hegemon on the European continent could threaten core US security interests as well as vital US economic interests. If Hitler had been allowed to consolidate his hold on Europe, the United States would have been confronted with a formidable enemy on the other side of the Atlantic—challenging America’s control of the Atlantic sea-lanes themselves.
The same insight guided the American efforts to protect Europe from the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Had the United States not provided security and economic assistance to the ruined Europe in the wake of World War II, Europe could have easily fallen to the Communists, and America would have been confronted with another authoritarian and threatening hegemon on the other side of the Atlantic.
This stark lesson of history has guided decades of US foreign policy: The best way to keep the Atlantic and North America safe is to keep Europe strong, stable, and friendly. The countries of Europe are America’s strategic neighbors, and no matter how frustrated Americans may grow with their behavior at times, it is better to invest in keeping the neighbors strong and stable than to risk instability or the advent of a hostile power.
Instability or the rise of a hostile power may seem far-fetched, but it is not unthinkable. The great difference between the United States and Europe is that the states of the United States are united; the states of Europe are not. Europe is a collection of small and middle-sized countries that have spent centuries fighting one another. They only learned to cooperate over the past seventy years, and they were largely able to do so because of the strong US commitment to their security. It was US-led initiatives such as NATO and the Marshall Plan that allowed the countries of Europe to break the murderous habit of conflict and work toward stability, freedom, peace, and democracy. Europe is peaceful and prosperous today because America helped it become so. But America cannot afford to take its hand off the wheel. Europe is not yet a stable structure: It is a club of diverse states that are being shaken by diverse forces, from racism and anti-Semitism to far-left and far-right extremism. And many of those forces would love to dissolve the club altogether.
If the United States were to disengage, there is a significant risk that the European Union would disintegrate, and disintegration would breed disaster. At the very least, Europe would lose all semblance of unity. It would once more be a collection of small and medium-sized states arguing over internal issues and incapable of acting together on the world stage; and the power vacuum left by the retreat of America and the rejection of Brussels would be filled by a resurgent Russia, whose aggression has already been felt in Georgia and Ukraine.
I am not suggesting that Russia would physically occupy Europe, but it would find it easier to influence the policies and economies of individual European countries, even the largest. By leveraging its control of key countries and, in particular, the extreme European dependency on imported Russian gas, Russia could effectively turn Europe into an expanded Russian sphere of influence. In this situation, the partnership between the United States and Europe would be history. Politically, the United States would lose a valuable European partner, and in terms of security, the United States would be faced with a strengthened, assertive Russia that has already made anti-Americanism the central plank of its foreign policy and is seeking out anti-American forces across Europe with which to build an alliance.
______
The American people should not forget that Europe is still divided between those forces who favor an alliance with America and those who want to create a geopolitical alternative to the United States. Any signal of American disengagement, not to speak of a pivot away from Europe, strengthens America’s enemies and weakens its friends.
Ever since the end of the Second World War and the creation of the great international institutions under the leadership of the United States, powerful elements in European political and intellectual elites have dreamed that the European nations could form a more cohesive whole to counterbalance the United States. When President Dwight D. Eisenhower undercut Great Britain and France during the Suez Crisis in 1956, German chancellor Konrad Adenauer famously told French prime minister Guy Mollet, “France and England will never be powers comparable to the United States; not Germany, either. There remains to them only one way of playing a decisive role in the world: That is, to unite Europe. We have no time to waste. Europe will be your revenge.”
Chancellor Adenauer was a pro-Atlanticist; he just described a reality. But the idea of creating a European alternative to America, rather than an alliance with America, has persisted into our own times, and at times it has provoked serious rifts within the European family of nations.
The most striking recent example came in the buildup to the Iraq War in 2003. Opinions in Europe were bitterly divided, and French president Jacques Chirac and German chancellor Gerhard Schröder not only regularly criticized the US approach in outspoken terms, but also claimed to be speaking on behalf of Europe as they did so. Chirac, in particular, made his opposition to the United States a central plank of his worldview.
Jacques Chirac is a fascinating personality. He is well versed in French history and culture and a strong defender of the French language. Once he left a European meeting when one of his compatriots, a businessman, spoke English, claiming, “This is the language of business.” Having spent some time in the United States, Chirac speaks excellent English himself, but it is a matter of principle with him to defend the French language against what he sees as Anglo-Saxon linguistic imperialism. Being former French minister of agriculture, he not only is an expert in every nook and corner of EU agriculture policy, but also has a veneration for agriculture, farmers, and rural life, and was often seen campaigning in the countryside. In the French village where my family and I have a vacation home, there is a saying that Jacques Chirac has patted every cow in France. A typical French élégantier, he also understands courting the women. I think my wife has a hidden admiration for the former French president since he, in the typical French way, courteously kissed her hand.
I always enjoyed talking with President Chirac, but his worldview differed profoundly from mine. During a working lunch, he once told me, “The American approach is simplistic and influenced by the fact that the United States is a young civilization.” That statement reflects an American-skeptic sentiment frequently met within the political, intellectual, and media establishment in Europe, sometimes even a kind of anti-Americanism. Chirac also showed little regard for the smaller countries of Europe. He once attacked Eastern European countries, saying they “missed a good opportunity to be quiet” when they signed letters backing the US position on Iraq.
On several occasions, Chirac repeated his vision of a multipolar world, in which there would be an American pole, a European pole, a Chinese one, an Indian one, and eventually a South American pole. He once told me, “It is dangerous when the United States tries to impose her thinking on others. France has, together with Germany, Russia, and China, another, but common vision, and the four countries are speaking with each other.” He and Chancellor Schröder met frequently with Russian president Putin, and both before and after the Iraq War they forged a kind of alliance against the United States. When Schröder was voted out of office, he even went to work as a lobbyist for the controversial Nord Stream gas pipeline from Russia to Germany that he had approved as chancellor.
I saw this vision of a French-German-Russian alliance as a dangerous geopolitical fantasy that would weaken not only the transatlantic bond between Europe and the United States but also the solidarity and cohesion of the European Union. I also strongly opposed what I considered President Chirac’s attempts to undermine and weaken the prime minister of Great Britain, Tony Blair, who certainly did not share Chirac’s vision of a multipolar world with Europe setting itself up in opposition to America. On the contrary, he was in favor of a very strong bond between Europe and America to tackle problems together.
To understand the role America can and must play in Europe for its own good, it is worth considering Chirac and Blair as the two poles of geopolitical thinking in Europe. If Jacques Chirac exemplified the dream of a European alternative to the United States, Tony Blair exemplified the realism of an alliance.
I cannot remember a single case when I disagreed with Tony Blair. He was the first to call and congratulate me when I was elected prime minister in 2001. Soon after, he hosted a meeting in Downing Street, London, where, over breakfast, we laid the foundation for several years of close cooperation. We had very close and frequent contacts. Once, in the preparation for a press conference in Copenhagen, I told Tony Blair that some media in Denmark insist that I’m in his pocket. “Yes, and they claim I’m in George Bush’s pocket; and he is in the pocket of the Almighty,” Tony said as he completed my sentence. At another time, I communicated with Tony while canoeing down the St. Croix River on the border between Minnesota and Wisconsin. Having celebrated our son’s marriage to Kristina Smith from Minnesota, we were preparing a canoeing trip when Downing Street called with a request for a phone conversation. We equipped one of the canoes with communication tools, including a satellite phone, started paddling down the river, and just before the agreed time for the telephone call, we found a quiet sandbank in the middle of the river. We got ready for the telephone call. I got Tony on the line, and we started our discussion. Suddenly he stopped and asked me, “Anders, I hear the singing of birds and the purl of water. Where are you?” I told him where and why, and, laughing, he said, “I envy you. I wish we could transform such personal transatlantic bonds into strong political ties between Europe and the United States.”
Coming from two different political parties, we nonetheless shared common positions on international politics, European politics, and even domestic politics. In 1999, Blair gave a great foreign-policy speech in Chicago in which he made the case that humanitarian military intervention can sometimes be necessary to save lives and protect human rights against assaults by ruthless dictators. He was a pronounced exponent of an ethical foreign policy. He pushed strongly to intervene militarily in Kosovo in 1999 to prevent a looming genocide, and he engaged Britain in a military operation to save lives in the African state of Sierra Leone, for which he won genuine applause. But he was heavily criticized for his support of the Iraq invasion in 2003. I have no doubt that he thought from the first that military intervention was the morally correct course to follow, and he firmly believed that a special relationship between Great Britain and the United States, and indeed between Europe and the United States, was essential for the protection and promotion of the values of freedom and democracy. Even in the face of negative public opinion he stood firm and steady, and you could always count on him. He was a strong leader, but eventually he was forced to step down. It is a rich British Labour Party and a rich British nation that can afford to throw away such a stout and gifted leader. And Europe needs political leaders who are devoted both to European integration and to the alliance with the United States. That’s exactly why President Chirac saw Tony Blair as a major obstacle to his vision of Europe as a contrast to America.
Indeed, at a crucial moment in the Iraq debate, Tony Blair was one of the leading spirits behind an op-ed article that eight of us European leaders—Blair; Prime Ministers José Maria Aznar of Spain, Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, José Manuel Barroso of Portugal, Péter Medgyessy of Hungary, and Leszek Miller of Poland; the president of the Czech Republic, Václav Havel; and I—signed, to refute the claim by Chirac and Schröder that they were speaking on behalf of Europe. Under the headline “United We Stand,” the article appeared on January 30, 2003, in the Wall Street Journal and a number of European newspapers. It was a broad statement of support for the United States in its efforts to put the maximum pressure on Saddam Hussein to comply with the UN Security Council resolutions. “The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international community are our best hope of achieving this peacefully. Our strength lies in unity. . . . The transatlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the current Iraqi regime’s persistent attempts to threaten world security,” we wrote.
It is a rare event for so many national leaders to take our peers to task in public, but the situation was extremely grave. Chirac and Schröder were not only putting themselves on a collision course with the United States, they were trying to drag us along with them. We wanted to emphasize that there was no European consensus on the Franco-German criticism of the United States. It was my clear view that a rift between Europe and America would be a weakening of the international community that would reduce pressure on Iraq and play into the hands of Saddam Hussein. For me it was also a question of the fundamental solidarity within our transatlantic alliance: Allies help each other when needed. Europe owes its freedom to the United States, which has helped the Europeans both in older and more recent history; then Europe should also help the United States when called. “Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and far-sightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent in the twentieth century: Nazism and Communism,” we wrote.
In the end, Europe remained divided. Many of us joined the US-led campaign in Iraq; France, Germany, and a few other countries did not. But at least we avoided an open rift between Europe and the United States, which could have had serious geopolitical consequences.
The lesson of this painful episode is that America has both friends and would-be rivals in Europe. There are still politicians on the Old Continent who would prefer to see Europe as a competitor to the United States rather than a partner, and no matter how illusory that dream is, they will seek to make it reality. Europe still has its Blairs and its Chiracs, and if America does not stay engaged and show its support for the Blairs, it will run the risk of seeing the Chiracs steer Europe away.
When European integration bolsters Europe as a strong partner of the United States, it is good for freedom, peace, and prosperity. But if Europe sets itself up as a counter pole to the United States, it will only weaken the forces of freedom and strengthen the autocrats, including Russia. Hence, from a geopolitical and security point of view, the United States has a core interest in staying strongly engaged and cultivating its allies and partners in Europe. We cannot afford to lose our alliance to the forces of continental drift.
______
Given that Europe is a collection of small and medium-sized states in a dangerous neighborhood, whereas the United States is a superpower with secure borders all around, it is always more likely that America will have to help Europe than the other way around. Many Americans therefore ask why they should keep on investing American lives and American wealth in Europe’s security.
The first point is that the United States has a vital economic interest in strong ties with Europe. Actually, these ties are mutual, as Europe and the United States are each other’s biggest trade and investment partners. The economy of the European Union is as large as that of the United States, and its population of 510 million is considerably larger than America’s 320 million. The EU is the world’s largest trading bloc, and it ranks first in both inbound and outbound international investment. The EU is also the top trading partner of eighty countries.
The formation of an economically unified Europe has accelerated European economic growth and development, and this has opened trade and investment opportunities for the United States. Combined, the EU and the United States generate about 40 percent of world gross domestic product, and their mutual trade accounts for about half of all world trade. Mutual investments are huge: US investment accounts for about half of the total foreign investments in the European Union, while investment from EU countries accounts for over 60 percent of the total foreign investment in the United States.
So, from an economic point of view, Europe is an indispensable partner of the United States. Notwithstanding current challenges stemming from the refugee crisis, the debt burden, negative demographics, and rigid societal structures, the countries of Europe hold a lot of potential that could be further advanced through strengthened transatlantic cooperation.
Germany is an economic powerhouse with a strong manufacturing industry and strong competitiveness. France has a number of large international corporations that are world leaders in their field, and France pursues a global approach to defense and security. The UK is a global financial center and has a global perspective through the Commonwealth. Italy is rich in culture, fashion, and links to strategically important North Africa. Eastern Europe is reform oriented, with enormous growth potential. The transformation of the former Communist states into modern democracies and vibrant economies has generated impressive growth rates, jobs, and prosperity and created a region with huge future opportunities. Despite exorbitant tax rates, the Nordic countries have combined a social welfare system with efficient market economies. Stout free traders, they rank high in international evaluations of competitiveness, doing business, protection of property rights, and lack of corruption.
The same is true in terms of security. While no other country on Earth can boast the military power of the United States, countries like Britain and France still punch above their weight in terms of hard power. Even smaller countries, such as my own Denmark, can make a big contribution to multinational military operations.
Above all, Europe and North America bring their security concerns together in NATO. For almost seven decades, NATO has ensured the security and stability that have allowed all of our nations to flourish. With its unique integrated command structure, unrivaled military capabilities, tried and tested forces and procedures, and extensive network of partnerships, NATO is the most successful alliance in history. America has alliances with other countries in other parts of the world, but only in Europe does it have the standing capability that NATO can provide. That is something that is worth preserving.
______
However, while gifted with a lot of opportunities, the European Union is teetering on the brink of disintegration, not only because of the current refugee crisis but, more fundamentally, because of endemic weaknesses, such as negative demographics, rigid labor markets, inadequate welfare systems, and the debt burden. Whereas an appropriate response to most of these challenges would be profound reforms of European societies and a more outward-looking Europe, there is a clear risk that nationalistic, inward-looking forces will gain ground and push Europe in the direction of more closed societies and less engagement with the world beyond the continent.
Such developments would run contrary to fundamental American interests. The United States has an essential interest in keeping Europe as a vital, vigorous, and vivid partner and ally; an ally that is capable and willing to help America protect and promote the principles of freedom and democracy. And Europe has a core interest in maintaining an American commitment to transatlantic economic and security cooperation. But Europe needs a shot in the arm to remain the strong, preferred partner that the United States needs to carry out the task of being the world’s policeman. To that end, Europe must reform itself, and on both sides of the Atlantic, political leaders and civil society must engage in preparing a wide-ranging plan for creating a strong and integrated transatlantic community. That will require strong and sustained efforts to deal with the migrant and refugee crisis, stimulate economic growth, liberalize markets, and encourage trade.
The greatest threat to European unity is the current refugee and migrant crisis. Indeed, the massive influx of people fleeing war, oppression, and poverty threatens to shatter Europe, breaking up the European Union and the unity that was the core of the new regional order that visionary European politicians, supported by the United States, created after World War II. The recent vote in the United Kingdom to leave the European Union is an expressive demonstration of the centrifugal forces that are now threatening to fragment Europe.
More than one million migrants and refugees crossed into Europe in 2015, the result of the worst migration and refugee crisis since World War II, as people fled conflict and poverty, primarily in the Middle East, Africa, and Afghanistan. Forging common EU measures has proved difficult because of national sovereignty concerns and the asymmetrical impact of each migrant crisis. The states of first arrival are keen not to end up bearing the burden alone. The transit countries are tempted to divert the flow of migrants to other nations by selectively closing their borders and, if that is not possible, to pass the refugees along to the next country as rapidly as possible. The countries where most refugees ended up wish to slow down the inflow and call for EU-wide burden sharing.
The inflow of refugees and migrants is likely to continue for years, and probably decades. Not only Syria but also a number of other Middle Eastern countries are facing security challenges that could give rise to new refugee flows. More and more Afghans are aiming to leave their increasingly unstable country. Growing migration pressure can also be expected from Africa, due to poverty and a steadily increasing population.
The likely high levels of immigration into the EU in the coming years could bring both benefits and challenges. On the one hand, an aging Europe will need qualified immigrants to ensure future economic growth and financing of the European welfare systems. On the other hand, overly rapid and uncontrolled inflows could exceed the capacity of the host countries to integrate the new arrivals and finance education and social services. If the European Union cannot deliver on securing its external borders and ensuring fairer burden sharing among member states, a progressive renationalization of not only migration policies but also other policies will be unavoidable. The likely outcome will be not only stagnation but fragmentation.
Such a development would be a deadly blow to decades of efforts to create a new Europe, whole, free, and at peace. It is absolutely essential to counter this destructive development and to bring Europe back on track. The problem is overwhelming. To fix it, there is a need for groundbreaking reforms, nationally as well as at the European level, that will challenge much European conventional thinking. However, this is such a daunting task that the United States and Europe should address it in a joint effort. While the societal structures of America and Europe are different, we are facing the same challenges, and those challenges could have a considerable impact on the future of our liberal democratic societies and the transatlantic relationship. That is why we need a transatlantic refugee and immigration policy.
Such a policy should have as its foundation the firm belief that people who uprooted themselves, fled their country of birth, and made the risky and dangerous journey to America or Europe possess a lot of initiative, drive, and courage. These are people who feel compelled to succeed in their new country because they left so much behind in their old country. Many of them have an entrepreneurial spirit. It is no coincidence that 40 percent of today’s Standard and Poor’s companies in the United States were founded by immigrants or their children. These immigrants want the chance to live, to work, and to prosper. The challenge in both the United States and in Europe is to give them that chance.
Doing so would benefit the whole of society, through the energy and entrepreneurship the new arrivals bring, but it would demand a united effort by all the host countries. To make sure that our countries stay true to the principles of the open society and do not fall prey to xenophobic populists, I would suggest a five-point plan in a joint American-European effort to address the refugee and immigrant challenges:
First, we should make the newcomers to America and Europe an asset and not a liability for our societies. Essentially, we should liberalize access to work and restrict access to social benefits. An open society is open to workers, not to welfare abusers. Too often, refugees and immigrants have difficulties getting a foothold in society because it is too difficult to get access to work and too easy to get handouts from the government. It would be fair to say that people who come to a new country cannot be eligible for social assistance until they have stayed, worked, and contributed to the community for at least a number of years. Such a system would also make it easier for people to accept the free movement of labor across borders.
Second, it is indispensable to establish a tight, impenetrable external border control, including effective vetting rules and procedures to prevent potential terrorists from entering our countries. This is the first prerequisite to better manage the influx, and a better controlled inflow is necessary to ensure an adequate integration of the newcomers, both in America and in Europe.
Furthermore, effective external border controls are an absolute prerequisite for maintaining freedom of movement across internal EU borders. If there is no confidence in the external border, country by country will introduce national border controls. That would be a huge economic setback for Europe. The way forward is a common, EU-controlled external border control. While the EU is a relatively loose union of sovereign nation-states, the United States is a relatively strong federal state. Perhaps the EU could draw inspiration from the United States on how federal border controls are operated. This would initially encounter opposition from individual European nations, but it is essential; otherwise, the EU will disintegrate, possibly with a small, hard core of countries that will bind each other closely, with the rest of the EU in a looser community.
Third, there is a need for fair burden-sharing, both within Europe and between Europe and the United States. So far, the United States has only accepted a tiny proportion of the refugees, and it should accept a much higher number. The treatment and handling of refugees is a joint responsibility. We can’t just turn our backs on people who are fleeing from President Assad’s chemical attacks, Russia’s random bombing of civilians, and IS’s beheadings and crucifixions. Basic human decency requires us to find solutions to the fate of these unfortunate people.
However, we also have to be realistic. Neither America nor Europe will be able to accommodate all the wretched of this world who seek refuge and a better life. After having agreed on an allocation between the United States and the EU, we should help the conflict zones’ neighboring countries to receive and accommodate refugees and finance the burden. We should put maximum pressure on the wealthy nations in the region to accept more refugees and help finance the task. And overall, Europe and America should do more to help fragile states in the near neighborhood, creating a positive economic and social development, so that their citizens seek better opportunities in life at home rather than desperately embarking on the hazardous journey to Europe and America.
Fourth, Europe and America will need robust policies for returning illegal immigrants to their countries of origin. This should be complemented by well-run and well-regulated channels for legal migration. In order to counter the people-smuggling industry, applications for asylum or work permits could be processed in third countries, and accepted asylum-seekers or migrants could be brought directly to America and Europe, undercutting the illegal and repulsive business of human trafficking.
Fifth, it is essential to do away with the naïveté of integration policies. We must realize that successful integration is much more than providing jobs and training for newcomers. There is also a need for values-based education to promote values-based integration. For a successful integration, it’s crucial that new arrivals with a sometimes radically different cultural and religious background understand and respect the historical, cultural, and religious roots of our societies and the values upon which our civilization is built. For example, immigrants should make the effort to learn the language of their host country—a basic principle, but one that is not always observed and causes great resentment when it is ignored.
More important still, immigrants must understand and accept our attitude to religion, and the way in which religion and the state interact. This is particularly important for the hundreds of thousands of Muslims fleeing to Europe, who come from a different tradition in which the roles of religion and state are blended very differently, and who have a strong cultural identity in which their religion often plays a central role. While Americans, generally speaking, are more religious than Europeans, there is in America a very clear separation of church and state. Religion is a private matter, and you have a strong, religious civil society. In some European countries, such as France, there is a strict separation between church and state, la laïcité. In other countries, the separation is not quite as sharp, but all over Europe, it is a clear foundation for democracy that legislation is decided by the elected parliament and not determined by holy scriptures.
While of course there are differences from country to country, America and Europe are basically influenced by the Enlightenment ideas of individual human rights, which gradually evolved into demands for equal rights for women and men, equal protection for all religious beliefs and sexual orientations, and the subordination of church and religion to the state authorities.
Freedom of religion, as well as freedom of expression, are integral principles of our liberal democracies. Each individual has the right to practice his or her religion freely, and freedom cuts two ways. The right to practice your religion freely is complemented by the right to have a free and critical religious debate. Freedom of expression cannot be abolished or limited by claiming that something is holy, and therefore exempt from discussion.
In essence, newcomers to Europe and America might not like the fact that European citizens and the media can criticize figures whom they view as holy, but they have to accept it, because the law that protects such critics is the same law that protects the migrants themselves. Opponents of this approach will claim that it is a form of cultural imperialism aimed at imposing our values when, in fact, it is about preserving and enforcing our laws. The law applies to all citizens equally. The law that protects freedom of expression is the also the law that protects you against discrimination on any grounds, such as sex, race, color, language, religion, political or other opinion, and national or social origin. For successful integration, it is essential that new citizens understand and respect these fundamental rules.
How we handle the refugee crisis will be crucial for the future of Europe, America, and, indeed, our liberal democratic values. Europe is under siege. The arrival of hundreds of thousands of immigrants and refugees is already testing the cohesion of the European Union and, indeed, Europe at large. It is leading more and more Europeans to question what the benefits of European integration actually are. For America, an unraveling of the European Union would be a major blow to decades of efforts to build a Europe whole, free, and at peace. If the tide is to turn, Europe has to act. In order to regain trust and optimism, Europe needs to be revitalized. It needs a shot in the arm.
______
The good news is that Europe has a strong potential to once again become the continent of optimism and growth, and remain a solid partner of choice for the United States. And the United States can help that European renaissance by working to reinforce security cooperation within NATO and to boost economic cooperation with new agreements.
Security and economic growth are inextricably linked. Since 1949, NATO has been the framework for security cooperation between North America and Europe. The most famous clause of the North Atlantic Treaty is Article 5, which states that an attack on one ally is an attack on all, but it is worth remembering that before that comes Article 2, which states that the allies will seek “to eliminate conflict in their economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.”
Few people are aware of the existence of Article 2. When the treaty is mentioned at all, it is most often in the context of Article 5. That needs to change. We need a new transatlantic relationship in which our economic cooperation is as close and consistent as our security cooperation; what could be called a relationship of “Article 2 plus 5.” Confronted with the new geopolitical challenges, the assertiveness of resurgent states, and attempts to undermine the rules-based international order, North America and Europe should enhance and expand the transatlantic relationship into a truly “integrated transatlantic community.”
An integrated transatlantic community would help us to strengthen the different strands of our relationship: our security cooperation, our economic links, and our personal ties. It would help us to protect our common values, our populations, and our societies; to promote the rules-based international order and norms and practices; to preserve our peace and our prosperity; and to assist other nations’ progress toward peace and prosperity, too.
As a top priority, we must continue to strengthen the security strand, because security is the foundation for everything that we have and everything that we hope to achieve. After decades of détente in Europe, a resurgent and aggressive Russia has created a fundamentally new security environment on the European continent. This will require a new NATO security posture.
This work has already begun. NATO is establishing a persistent presence in the Eastern European countries most exposed to Russia, in the form of a continuous rotation of troops. In addition, and based upon a proposal I made after Russia’s annexation of Crimea, NATO countries have set up a spearhead force at constant high readiness, to be deployed within a few hours. But more must be done. If Europe wants to be a useful and preferred partner for the United States, European allies must also make their military forces more deployable, and acquire military assets that make them able to assist in international operations beyond Europe.
But as we all know, nothing comes for free, and security certainly doesn’t. That’s why it is vital that NATO remains fit for that purpose—not for the sake of war, but for the sake of peace. All allies must continue to invest in NATO, politically, militarily, and financially, and all must shoulder a fair share of the burden, just as all share in the benefits, including living up to the NATO benchmark of defense investments equivalent to at least 2 percent of GDP. That commitment is a key part of a truly integrated transatlantic community.
However, credible deterrence is not only a question of the size of investments and the amount and quality of military capabilities. It is as much a question of the willingness to actually use these capabilities if needed. In 2015, the Pew Research Center published a survey that revealed a highly disturbing lack of will to defend friends and allies with armed force. The Pew Center asked the following question: “If Russia got into a serious military conflict with one of its neighboring countries that is our NATO ally, do you think our country should or should not use military force to defend that country?” In Germany, 68 percent responded no to this question; in France and Italy, 53 percent and 51 percent, respectively, answered no.
The fact that a majority are against the use of military force to defend an ally is in direct contradiction to the very foundation of NATO. Article 5 builds on the oath of the Three Musketeers: One for all, all for one. If this solidarity is questioned, it is the very raison d’être of NATO that fades away. Fortunately, the answers in the survey are not reflected in the stances of political leaders. While, for instance, 68 percent of the Germans seem to be against the use of military force to defend an ally, I feel sure that German chancellor Angela Merkel, who, due to her upbringing under Eastern German Communism, is firmly committed to the defense of freedom, would never hesitate to help allies, even with the use of military force. But the depressing result of the Pew survey is the need for determined political leadership to cultivate and maintain the sense of solidarity and the commitment to a robust defense of our values. Security is precious, and freedom is priceless, but neither comes for free: We have to be able and willing to defend both.
Like NATO for security, we also need an “economic NATO.” The ultimate goal should be to create a transatlantic free trade area (TAFTA). A transatlantic free-trade zone would bring enormous benefits to all of our nations and all of our people for generations to come. It could set a new gold standard in economic cooperation, just as NATO has long been the gold standard in security cooperation. And just like NATO, it could be a strong pillar for a truly integrated transatlantic community. The first step could be a rapid conclusion of the negotiations between the United States and the European Union on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The long-term benefits of a successful TTIP would be enormous. It would boost trade and investment; it would stimulate jobs, innovation, and growth; and it would promote the principles of a rules-based trading system.
Of course, we are all aware that there are vested interests and sensitivities over a wide range of issues such as agricultural subsidies, genetically modified organisms, chlorinated chicken, public health, and sanitary regulations. But while we should respect legitimate concerns, we should not let particular interests and sensitivities undermine the much greater good that we can achieve for all of our nations and for the rest of the world. The greater strategic good should not be bogged down with technical details.
______
Strengthening trade and economic activity across the Atlantic is an important priority, but my vision for an integrated transatlantic community is much broader. It’s also about strengthening people-to-people relations, and promoting the values and ideals that we all share. I believe that students, academics, and artists should all have greater opportunities to cross the Atlantic in both directions. Comprehensive exchange programs of greater cultural, educational, and scientific cooperation will help to strengthen our community of values, and it will also underpin TTIP.
But there is more to this than just traditional exchange programs. The regular interaction between businesspeople and other professionals across the Atlantic is of invaluable importance to continuously nurturing the economic, political, cultural, and personal bonds as well as strengthening shared values. In Europe, we know how much it impacts on common European policies that leaders from all walks of life from all over Europe meet frequently in Brussels. The same positive effect across the Atlantic is essential if we are not only to uphold but also to reinforce the transatlantic relationship.
I know how much I benefited from traveling to the United States as a young politician some thirty years ago. It gave me a profound understanding of the country and its people, and it created bonds with families, colleagues, and institutions that I still cherish today and that continue to help me in my work.
In 1982, I traveled to the United States as a guest of the International Visitor Leadership Program. The IVLP is the US Department of State’s premier professional exchange program. Through short-term visits to the United States, current and emerging foreign leaders in a variety of fields experience the United States firsthand and cultivate lasting relationships with their American counterparts. Visitors from all over the world have come to the United States, they have learned about American society, they have met Americans from all walks of life, and they have established warm friendships with families across the country. Many visitors have later become leaders in their own countries, leaders in politics, business, or in other fields. They carry with them a deep knowledge of American history, culture, and way of life, and some wonderful memories from their visit to the United States. You can’t overestimate the importance of that investment in a deeper cultural understanding.
My trip to the United States in 1982 was the first time that I had ever visited the country. The travel program was an exploration of American geography, culture, and political ideas. I spent a bit more than a month in the States, during the second half of the stay accompanied by my wife. I traveled from Washington, DC, to Syracuse in upstate New York, to Chicago, Dallas, Minneapolis, Phoenix, San Francisco, and New York City before going back to Europe. We established personal bonds with families who accommodated us in their private homes, we helped a farmer in Minnesota bale straw, visited Danish American communities in Wisconsin, drove through the impressive Nevada desert, and looked out over the staggering Grand Canyon. I participated in political meetings; I spoke with citizens, politicians, academics, and businesspeople; I attended a rodeo; I shook so many hands that I almost believed that I was running for office myself; and I found Americans to be very much like the people in my native Jutland: kind, hospitable, and often skeptical of government. I learned a great deal, and I ended the trip more convinced than ever that the United States and Europe share a unique bond that must be preserved and strengthened.
______
There is one area where, in particular, Europe can and should work more closely with the United States to solve one of the world’s most dangerous problems: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But to play a useful role, Europe will have to come to terms with the darkest part of its history and culture: anti-Semitism.
In April 2004, I visited Houston, Texas, and brought with me a special gift to the local Holocaust museum: a model of the Danish cutter Elisabeth K571. It was carved from timber from the actual cutter, which was used to rescue Danish Jews from Nazi persecution during World War II. Thanks to the courage of my compatriots at the time, most Danish Jews were smuggled across the strait between occupied Denmark and neighboring neutral Sweden, where they found refuge. It is estimated that some 95 percent of Denmark’s Jewish population survived the war. For that deed, the Houston Holocaust Museum wanted to reward the Danish people, and as prime minister I went to Houston to accept the Lyndon B. Johnson Moral Courage Award on behalf of Denmark.
In my acceptance speech, I stated: “The organized persecution and unprecedented systematic attempt to exterminate the Jewish people, its culture and traditions, is a shameful and indelible stain on European history.” That is as true today as it was then, and the more I consider that history, the more I am ashamed to see how anti-Semitism, often disguised as criticism of Israel, has again started to be expressed in Europe.
Since the founding of Israel in 1948, Israel and the West have enjoyed a unique and strong relationship. The history of the Holocaust and common perceptions of shared democratic values have contributed to strong bilateral ties. Today, Israel is a vibrant economy and well-functioning democracy, one of relatively few countries in the world deemed “free” by the independent monitoring organization Freedom House. That is all the more remarkable when you consider that Israel lies in a region plagued by turmoil.
But in spite of this positive track record, Israel is increasingly the object of European criticism and loathing. In 2013, a BBC World Service global survey found that Israel was the fourth most “negatively viewed” nation in the world, after Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea. In only one Western country—the United States—did a majority express favorable views of Israel. Out of EU nations, the UK was found to have the most unfavorable view: 72 percent of the Brits surveyed felt negatively about Israel, and in France the number was 63 percent.
Anti-Semitism and resentment toward the State of Israel have inflamed hatred and violent acts against Jews across Europe. The US State Department declared in 2014 that Europe was witnessing a wave of anti-Israel sentiments that crossed the line into anti-Semitism. Attacks on synagogues and raids on Jewish shops have become a part of everyday life for many European Jews. The dividing line between anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiments is, at times, diffuse. Deep-seated anti-Semitism in Europe can have the effect that many leaders are quick to condemn Israel, yet take their time to utter a word of condemnation of terrorist attacks conducted by Palestinians. One example is the European silence when the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, in a television speech on November 16, 2015, stated, “We bless every drop of blood spilt for Jerusalem. With the help of Allah, every martyr will be in Heaven.” He added, “Al-Aqsa is ours, and so is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. They have no right to desecrate them with their filthy feet.” The European Union didn’t hold Mahmoud Abbas to account over his incitement to violence and his unwillingness to condemn the ongoing stabbing attacks.
Today, many people have forgotten why Israel was established in the first place. Often we hear the question, “Why could Jews just come and occupy Palestinian land and drive out the Palestinians already living there?” Apart from all the religious connotations, some historical facts are crucial to understand this complicated situation. The State of Israel was founded with support from the international community in the wake of World War II. There was widespread recognition that the Jewish people needed a homeland after centuries of exile and persecution culminating in the Holocaust. On November 29, 1947, the United Nations recommended the partition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish, one Arab. The UN resolution followed a 1922 decision by the League of Nations to grant Britain a mandate over Palestine, which included, among other things, provisions calling for the establishment of a Jewish homeland facilitating Jewish immigration and encouraging Jewish settlement on the land. The Jews accepted the United Nations resolution while the Arabs rejected it. When the British mandate over Palestine expired, on May 14, 1948, the Jews proclaimed the creation of the State of Israel. The United States recognized the new nation on the same day, and the Soviet Union soon followed suit.
This is obviously a case with many dilemmas. Evidently it’s not without problems to establish a new Israeli state on a territory hitherto occupied by Palestinians. On the other hand, it was crystal clear after the atrocities against the Jewish people during World War II that Jews must have their own land where they could build a new future, and where would such a nation otherwise be located? We must remember that there were already hundreds of thousands of Jews living in Palestine, and the fact is that Israelis and Palestinians could have lived peacefully together if the Arab countries had initially accepted the UN resolution on the partition of Palestine.
Anyway, Europe has a strong case—I would say an obligation—to support Israel. First, there is the historical legacy. The Nazi crimes against the Jews created a special debt to the Jewish people that should be redeemed through an unequivocal European support for the idea of an Israeli state that could defend itself against attack. History taken into account, it is commendable that German political leaders are very aware of Germany’s special ties with Israel. But it would be a mistake to believe that this is solely a German obligation. The fact is that the Nazis had helpers in many European countries in their attempt to exterminate the Jews. I hate to say it, but the fact is that anti-Semitism has always lurked under the surface of European culture. Given Europe’s troubled history at this point, it has a special obligation to support Israel.
Second, Israel is a free society living up to the high standards of a true democracy. Despite being attacked by their neighbors several times since the establishment of the State of Israel, and despite living in constant fear of terrorist attacks, the Israeli people have managed to build and maintain a stable democracy with a lively political debate, a vibrant media environment, and protection of civil rights, notwithstanding indispensable security measures. I would guess that more Palestinians enjoy democratic rights inside the State of Israel than in any other place in the region.
Democracies should unite and support each other to protect and promote the principles of freedom and democracy. In the choice between autocracy and democracy, you can’t stay neutral. In a sea of civil wars, terrorism, and political oppression, Israel stands as an island of stability, freedom, and democracy. European countries should support Israel to demonstrate to countries in the region that freedom and democracy pay.
Third, Europe should pursue a more balanced approach to maximize its influence over all parties in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Europe has lost much credibility among Israelis because of its bias against Israel, and has not won credibility among the Palestinians in return. The only viable solution to the conflict is to establish a two-state model, as envisaged by the UN in 1947 and advanced on several later occasions, most recently by President George W. Bush in 2002. It is a precondition for a viable two-state solution that a Palestinian state is economically viable and sustainable, and that the State of Israel is guaranteed security. The vision is of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace, harmony, and security. Europe’s best chance to promote this vision would be to support Israel, be friends with Israel, and, against that backdrop, request that Israel ensure the sustainability of an independent Palestinian state by stopping the illegal settlements that undermine the viability of a Palestinian state. At the same time, the European Union should tell the Palestinian people that Europe will always support freedom and democracy, peace and security, and that the Palestinians can count on European support provided they guarantee Israel’s security, stop terrorism, and establish a true democracy in Palestine.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a tragedy for Israelis and Palestinians, for the Middle East at large, and also for Europe, which is suffering from the wars, conflicts, and instability in the immediate neighborhood. Israel is a democratic beacon, a stable society, and a vibrant economy in a region that desperately needs freedom, democracy, stability, and economic prosperity. If Israel and its neighbors could come together in peace and harmony and establish friendly contacts and fruitful trade relations, the region could release its untapped potential, create wealth, jobs, and prosperity, and form a virtuous circle in which economic progress could generate more stability, less conflict, more collaboration, and even more progress. The Mediterranean could again become a sea of peace, where the refugee flows could be replaced by the flows of merchant ships, creating strong and positive economic relations and people-to-people relations between Europe and the Middle East and North Africa.
______
Europeans, in general, feel a strong bond with America. The broad European popular admiration of, trust in, and support for the United States provide a very solid foundation for building an integrated transatlantic community. While some elitist groups within the political, academic, and cultural establishment occasionally express anti-American sentiments, that’s not reflected in the attitude of the man in the European street. It is striking that there is a considerable distance between the anti-Americanism that can be encountered in some parts of the political and intellectual elite, and how the general public admires and feels attracted to America.
On a regular basis, the Pew Research Center publishes surveys on America’s global image, and according to the latest survey, from 2015, America’s image in European populations was largely positive, with around two in three having a favorable opinion in Italy, Poland, France, the UK, and Spain. The outlier is Germany, where only 50 percent gave the United States a positive rating, while 45 percent expressed a negative one. America’s image in Germany has grown more negative in recent years, no doubt mainly because of the National Security Agency spying scandal, which was seen in Germany as a gross violation of German laws and a pattern of behavior more suited to the Communist-era secret police. In France, there is a stark contrast between the political elite and the average citizen: Three in four of the respondents expressed a favorable attitude to the United States, while you often meet anti-Americanism or at least a strong America-skepticism within the political, cultural, and intellectual elite.
In order for Europe to reach its full potential, Europeans should get rid of the last remnants of anti-Americanism, and America should help by promoting further military cooperation, further economic integration, and further people-to-people contacts. For Europe, there is no future in a multipolar world in which Europe acts as an alternative to the United States, simply because Europe would be squeezed between global centers of power that have both greater strength and greater geopolitical will to pursue their strategic goals. Different centers of power will inevitably become rival centers of power, which would be dangerous and destabilizing. Europe’s best chance is to act in a strong and equal partnership with the United States, help build an invincible global liberal democratic hegemony, and support the United States in exercising determined global leadership of a unipolar world that favors freedom. And America’s best chance of keeping the eastern shore of the Atlantic stable, safe, and friendly is to keep on working with the countries of Europe.