For decades, the US and the European Union are considered close partners in terms of politics, economy, military, and defence and security. However, in this seemingly “close” partnership, each side still has its own calculations, and there are even conflicts of interest in some areas. So what does this relationship truly look like at the moment and what are the calculations of each partner? These are the issues that have always attracted the attention of the international community.

Entangled interests

After World War II, European countries suffered severe destruction and the plan to rebuild “the old continent” was introduced in a meeting of European leaders in July, 1947. To help the reconstruction of Europe, the US sent economic and technological aid via the European Recovery Progamme, also known as the Marshall Plan. With the US’s assistance, European countries developed robustly compared to the pre-war period, notably, many continuously achieved high economic growth rate. The Marshall Plan was considered as a key factor in the European integration process, in other words, the US has a great contribution in the establishment and development of the European Union (EU).

Because of this assistance, despite the strong revival and development of EU, it still has to rely on the US in many aspects, especially security with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), and considers it a much stronger commitment than its expectation from the contribution of its members. For its part, NATO has always tried to maintain its operation after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and believes that the Bloc can protect Europe from terrorist attacks, Weapons of Mass Destruction, or illegal drug trade and immigration, etc. Because of these reasons, the EU has put too much faith in the “security umbrella” provided by the US, which leads to the Union’s incoherent approach to its common defence. Furthermore, EU members are only interested in equipping and strengthening their own military not the shared problems of the Union, therefore, this causes many challenges in handling the EU’s common defence and security issues.

According to many experts, due to the complex developments of the global situation; unpredictable strategic competition between major powers; and the rise of China and other nations, the world is no longer bipolar but heading toward a more multipolar direction, therefore, the EU will surely have to transform itself to be less reliant on the US and become a new polar of the world. During Donald Trump’s presidency (2017 – 2021), the US – EU relations experienced not only internal rifts and distrust but also conflicts in many areas. President Trump’s “America First” policy which disregarded the US’s relations with its allies, his shocking statements along with his decision to review the US – EU relations caused much tension between the two sides, making the thought of “decoupling from the US” more desirable for the EU.

Besides, the establishment of the trilateral security pact between the US, the UK, and Australia (AUKUS) in 2021, which led to the cancellation of Australia’s 40 billion USD submarine contract with France – an event that Paris called “a surprise blow” to its ally by the US, prompted the French President Emmanuel Macron to urge Europe to stop being naïve and become more independent, because the US is shifting its focus toward the Indo – Pacific region. Many military analysts believe that AUKUS has left a “wound” in the EU; at the same time, it has shown the geopolitical limitation of the Bloc, putting the EU under the threat of being left behind in global strategic competition. Therefore, the EU must think and act differently, and it may need its own defence and security strategies to protect its interests.

As there are increasing differences in the interests and views between the two sides of the pond, recently several European leaders have proposed ideas for strategic self-reliance and the establishment of a European army. EU’s Strategic Compass also addressed the issue of strengthening its ability to act independently in response to global security threats and challenges by 2025. In fact, in 2021, the EU’s defence spending reached a record high level of about 214 billion Euro (06% higher than 2021), and 51 billion Euro was spent on weapons and equipment procurement and research and development alone. However, this was not the peak of the EU’s defence spending, as the Bloc is planning to invest an additional 70 billion Euro to its members’ defence in the period of 2022 – 2025 and there will be a further increase in 2030; at the same time, it is stepping up the shared procurement of weapon and procurement of member states. Many EU leaders have realised that if each member only focuses on strengthening their own military capability without paying attention to the common issue of the Union, it will further fracture the EU’s defence power. Hence, “EU must commit itself outwardly and unite within to protect European people,” said the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Affairs.

The US’s extensive engagement policy

The international community believes that, in order to maintain its position as the only global superpower, all of the US’s strategies have always aimed to protect its security and national interests and promote its values. Thus, the US permanently implements an extensive engagement policy, focusing on strategically-important regions and adjusting its policies in accordance with developments in the global situation.  

In practice, the US has always considered Europe a key factor in its foreign policy, therefore it uses NATO as a tool to maintain its influence and protect its national interests. Hence, if the EU succeeds in forming a full-fledged and united army of its own, it is very likely that its members will consider dismantling NATO bases in their territory and withdrawing from the Pact. At the same time, this will neutralise the NATO leverage as the EU becomes more independent and free from the US’s influence. This will be a very precarious situation for the US, as it has to withdraw from key positions where its troops are currently stationed. Therefore, after taking office, the Biden Administration sought to “warm” the tie with the EU by committing to maintain, restore and reform the bilateral relations; actively conduct engagements; establishing new mechanisms to strengthen cooperation; and reassuring allies with friendly statements, etc. Despite these positive signs, the US will never abandon its calculations for national interests and policies aiming to restrain the EU.

Several figures in Europe believe that, besides trade policies that directly and indirectly affect the EU such as high tariffs on European imports, Inflation Reduction Act, etc. the US is also considered a “profiteer” in the Russo – Ukrainian conflict. Both the US and the EU are involved in the conflict, but only the latter has to suffer, so the US is killing two birds with one stone. First, the EU has to mobilise huge resources to help Ukraine thus missing the chance to strengthen its common defence capability and continue to rely on NATO in general and the US in particular. In fact, besides economic aid, European countries also have to assist Ukraine militarily, draining their stock of strategic armaments and weakening the common defence capability of the EU. To restock their arsenal, EU members have to increase weapon imports and the US is the main supplier. According to several reports, in 2022, the US’s weapon export value increased by 49% (approximately 205 billion USD). Second, the decrease in Russian oil and gas export to Europe created a huge opportunity for the US’s liquified natural gas (LNG) in this market. In order to isolate Russia from the international community, the US and the EU issued many sanctions against this country, including the imposition of a price cap on Russian oil. This led to a severe energy shortage in Europe, forcing the EU to seek alternate suppliers. This is a great opportunity for the US’s energy companies to become major suppliers in Europe (currently the US is the top energy exporter in Europe after Russia left this market). However, the price European countries are paying for US gas is much higher than Russian gas. Many Russian sources believe that “the American is making bank from selling gas to Europe at a cutthroat price”. Since the beginning of the Russo – Ukrainian conflict, the US has exported over 81 million tons of LNG to Europe and reaped huge profit. According to many studies, if EU leaders cannot work out a way to lower energy prices, living expenses in its member states will increase and the EU will have to cope with deindustrialisation, rising social tensions, and a degradation of its economic competitiveness. Notably, the delay of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia to Europe due to the prolonged conflict will further severe the energy shortage in Europe and the EU’s energy reliance on the US.

President of the European Council Charles Michels stated that, despite recent positive developments in the EU – US tie, bilateral economic cooperation has not been improved in a similar way. While the US increases energy exports and profits from high oil prices, the EU has to import LNG at high prices; the European industry sector has to spend more money on energy purchases and copes with fierce competition from US companies, Europe is on the brink of an economic recession. Therefore, the US should stop being naïve, because the US government always makes its own economic interests the first priority.

International political experts believe that, with the existing interests, the US will still put high importance on Europe – a key region in their foreign policy and the “security umbrella” – NATO will still be an effective tool. Besides, in a certain time frame, Washington is not likely to make efforts to promote an early conclusion of the Russo – Ukrainian conflict because the longer the conflict lasts, the more troops and materials Russia has to expend, and the EU also has to be more reliant on the US in terms of energy and military. This enables the Biden Administration to have a free hand in implementing their Indo – Pacific Strategy and maintaining its position as the sole global superpower.  

LAM PHUONG – THE HIEP