HomeExpressions by MontaigneAfter Kabul, AUKUS and Trump, a Transatlantic Stress TestInstitut Montaigne features a platform of Expressions dedicated to debate and current affairs. The platform provides a space for decryption and dialogue to encourage discussion and the emergence of new voices.05/11/2021After Kabul, AUKUS and Trump, a Transatlantic Stress TestThree questions to Kori Schake America International affairsPrintShare Kori Schake Leader of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Following the difficult Trump years, the Afghanistan debacle in August and the AUKUS deal in September 2021, US-EU relations have been scarred. The transatlantic alliance has survived worse crises before, but Americans should not be complacent. Kori Schake, Director of Foreign and Defense Policy at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), analyzes the state of the transatlantic alliance in the aftermath of recent events and answers our questions about the path forward for a successful bilateral relationship. What do the Biden decisions on Afghanistan and AUKUS mean for the transatlantic alliance and for NATO? How do they play into the US grand strategy moving forward?President Biden's insistence on proceeding with a complete and rapid withdrawal of US involvement in the Afghan war, despite deep concerns expressed by NATO allies about both the policy and the pace of execution, are unquestionably damaging to the alliance. Allies invoked NATO's mutual defense clause for the first time in 70 years to fight alongside the US. in Afghanistan, and stayed fighting there for nearly 20 years. Repaying that commitment with a disastrous endgame was a terrible policy choice. And Biden himself set the standard by which he is being judged in claiming so proudly that "America is back!" as a way to differentiate his foreign policy choices from his predecessor's. His policies have instead stoked concern that indifference to European concerns is systemic - something Allies should expect of the US - rather than an aberration caused by the anomaly of Donald Trump. The US will need European assistance in Asia, and France is a better partner than most Europeans, having French citizens in the Pacific, and a tradition of serious strategic thinking in Paris' defense policies. The AUKUS decision isn't contrary to transatlantic interests, because our security will require assisting nations like Australia to defend themselves, as strongly as China's political, economic, and military aggression necessitates. But the Biden administration's failure to make France part of the process was a disgraceful blunder which unnecessarily drove up the cost of carrying out the policy of tighter cooperation between the US, the UK and Australia. They could have sequenced the announcements, withdrawing from the submarine contract first and leaving a decent interval before the AUKUS fanfare; or they could have revised the contract to keep French companies involved in the nuclear-powered purchase.The US will need European assistance in Asia, and France is a better partner than most Europeans, having French citizens in the Pacific, and a tradition of serious strategic thinking in Paris' defense policies. President Biden clearly understands the cost of this strategic miscalculation. He has personally gone to some considerable length to take responsibility, apologizing both publicly and privately to President Macron. The Biden administration justified its abandonment of Afghanistan on the grounds that it needed to focus on China; and although Biden’s Afghanistan policy will likely be costlier than the allied strategy for continuing there, the rationale does indicate a clear prioritization of effort in US national security policy (whether their budget will be consistent with their professed priorities remains to be seen). It's likely allied policies will also move in that direction, because the challenges China poses are not only a threat to the US. They are challenges to the existing international order where commerce isn't coerced and free societies aren't subject to subversion. Russia and China pose similar problems, and our liberal values are endangered by both. As Europeans become increasingly exposed to Chinese intimidation, transatlantic policies are likely to converge. What, in your opinion, is the long-term impact of Afghanistan, not only of the departure but also more generally of the 20 years of NATO intervention, on the US relation with its allies?The long-term impact will be devastating for Afghans, destabilizing for the region, but merely shameful for the US and its allies. The progress of liberal values will be actively reversed by a Taliban-controlled government. Afghanistan will likely suffer a brain drain of massive proportions as those associated with or beneficiaries of Western intervention flee the country.Terrorism will emanate from Afghanistan, but our domestic and transatlantic defense have undergone robust growth in the past 20 years, so they can likely shield our territory. As for Pakistan, it will see a resurgent extremist problem that their policies have brought about, so it will receive little assistance from Western countries to curb it. Cooperation with India, highly anticipated to counter China, will be impeded by the Indian need to fight the instability of terrorist resurgence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Transatlantic relations are unlikely to be much affected, as this episode is not the first disappointment allies have experienced. Transatlantic relations are unlikely to be much affected, as this episode is not the first disappointment allies have experienced. It does not change the following fundamental equation: neither the US nor its European allies have a better option than close cooperation with one another. Both would happily trade the other away if only more capable and reliable options were on the table; neither the US nor Europeans have such alternatives. But it could, and probably should, make Europeans less trusting of US endurance, especially where marginal interests are affected.Recent events have raised questions about US credibility, compounding the wounds of Trump's legacy. Where do you stand on this?I think allies should always be anxious about US credibility because their security fundamentally depends on it. Extended deterrence is a very tricky balance to strike, and we should always be cautious that we are not destabilizing it. But I do think NATO is fundamentally sound, even though we often hurt each other's feelings and complicate each other's agendas. The US cannot remain secure and prosperous without Europe also being secure and prosperous. And there are no allies more capable who share similar motivation based on values we all consider universal: that people have rights and loan them in limited ways to governments for agreed purposes. We are all safest in a world in which those values are protected and advanced - that is the real glue of the transatlantic relationship. Copyright: Samuel Corum / GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA / Getty Images via AFPPrintSharerelated content 09/21/2021 The Submarine Deal: What it Says About the US, What it Means for Europe Maya Kandel 09/08/2021 Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Future of NATO Jamie Shea