(Translated from Spanish)
Opening remarks
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen,
Allow me to use Spanish to address you in this session that is as important as what will happen in our relations with the United States after the election of President [Donald J.] Trump. An election that is not fortuitous, but rather demonstrates a profound political and cultural transformation in American society.
[It demonstrates] a new relationship with politics, even a new relationship with the truth, because the truth seems to be excessively malleable. What is happening in the United States should not leave us indifferent because our two societies have [an] enormous porosity, and enormous relations between them. What has happened in the United States has a lot to do with the sociopolitical dynamics on the European continent.
There would be much to talk about the reasons for this election, but you do not want to have a sociological or sociopolitical debate about why Americans have voted for someone they already know. It is not the first time they have voted for him. And this time, more people voted for him.
You want to debate – and I think it is very pertinent – how this is going to affect the world, what geopolitical consequences it is going to have. I can tell you that it is going to have many geopolitical consequences; that this election, this decision of the American voters, is going to mark the development of the world as it will be for our grandchildren.
The next ten years will undoubtedly be marked by what Trump is going to do and what consequences it will have, but we are not here to speculate either. It is not the first time that someone promises something to be elected and then does not do it or even does something else. Therefore, I will not dedicate myself to speculating what President Trump can do, but I will tell you that we have to be prepared for what may happen. Calmly, vigilantly, but without giving the impression that we are paralyzed, like a deer in the night in front of the powerful headlights of a car that it meets on the road.
We must not show that we are frightened or divided – although in reality we certainly are, because the reception of President Trump’s victory has not been the same in one capital as in another.
In any case, this will have profound consequences for our bilateral relations as well. Trump talks about imposing 10% customs duties on all European products. If such a thing were to happen, it would certainly affect our competitiveness.
He also talks about imposing 60% customs duties on Chinese products. This, in a globalised market, would also affect us because Chinese products that would not go to the United States could come to Europe.
He also talks about massively expelling immigrants, which, apart from the moral and human issues, would also have an inflationary effect, which would increase interest rates in response from the US central bank and that has geoeconomic effects on all of us.
But you want to talk not about geoeconomics, but about geopolitics. Speaking of geopolitics, there are three areas on which you should focus your attention in this debate, which I will follow with great interest because it may probably be the last for me: the first is undoubtedly what can happen in Ukraine; the second is the Middle East; the third is the relationship with China and Taiwan.
All three are based on three key words: security, trade and technology. And I am going to concentrate on the first, on security, which is the core of my portfolio, of my competences – security and defence. Within this security dynamic, allow me to focus my attention and yours on Ukraine, because I have just returned from Kyiv.
I have just returned from Ukraine, where I spent three days visiting military training centres, visiting fortifications, visiting drone factories, visiting the places where Russia exercised its terror. I have had conversations with all the Ukrainian officials, with President Zelenskyy, with his military commanders. And, of course, they are worried about what decision the next American administration might take. They ask us what our reaction will be when, probably, [the new administration] – at least that is what [Trump] has said during the election campaign – makes its military support to Ukraine conditional from January.
I think that the European response cannot be anything other than to continue to maintain our commitments to that country, to Ukraine, to its people, and to continue to provide them with the support they need to continue to defend themselves. That will require resources. The relationship between American and European aid to Ukraine plays in our favour. We help Ukraine more – taking into account all forms of aid – than the United States. In the military dimension, the United States provides approximately 25% more than us, in military terms 25% more.
Replacing the United States would therefore represent a considerable financial and industrial effort, which would force us to ask ourselves again questions that we have already discussed. [For example,] what to do with the frozen funds of Russia, whose profits we have decided to take to help finance the Ukrainian defense industry and which, however, would not be sufficient. We would enter fully into a nuclear issue, debated and unresolved, but which will surely be put on the table: What is it: what to do, not with the profits from capital, but with capital itself.
The military situation is not easy, with high casualties on both sides, but we must avoid a diplomatic solution that marginalizes Ukraine and that in the process marginalizes us as well. An agreement between Trump’s United States and Putin’s Russia – bypassing Ukraine and the European Union to put a ceasefire on the table, postponing political discussions until later – is something that Ukraine rejects and that we must also reject. Nothing should be decided without the participation and agreement of Ukraine, which is paying the highest price for this war.
Of course, we must try to end it as soon as possible, but the way it ends matters. How it ends matters. Perhaps for some it doesn’t matter. Perhaps for some it is enough that it ends without knowing how and with what consequences, but I think that the European Union cannot help but care. What is more, it cares a lot about the way it knows, which can only be in a fair and sustainable way.
That brings me to another consideration, and I take advantage of these circumstances to say it. Trump’s election should serve to make us clearly aware of the need to strengthen our security, to take our destiny into our own hands, as they say now. But it is the same thing that was said in 2017, when Trump was first elected. The same words: “We must take our destiny into our own hands,” said [German] Chancellor Angela Merkel, 10 or 7 years ago.
We say the same thing today, but what has happened in these 7 years? For example, Germany’s military spending was 1.15% of GDP and recently it was 1.3% of GDP; [it has gone] from 1.15% to 1.3%. You can’t say that that is taking our destiny into our own hands, right? Now we are saying the same thing again and I hope that this time it is true.
Let me tell you something, the European Union is not an economic Union, or it is not just an economic Union. Of course, it is not about saying that on one side there is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to ensure security, and on the other side there is the European Union to deal with economic issues. No.
Since the Maastricht Treaty, the European Union has had the will and ambition to develop a common security and defence policy. The Union has military responsibilities, which do not end with the production of weapons for NATO armies. That would be a clear regression from what we have done over the last five years with the Strategic Compass and [with] everything we have put in place to ensure that the European Union also has a military role.
Not incompatible with NATO; not alternative, but complementary. ‘But complementary’ does not mean that it does not exist. Of course it does. No, it is true that on the one hand NATO deals with security and on the other hand we Europeans deal with the production of munitions. We have a Strategic Compass, approved by all the [member] countries, which must be followed, applied and developed in the next mandate.
The situation in the Middle East will also change. Surely this [new] American administration will not put the same weight that President [Joe] Biden and my friend [Secretary of State Antony] Blinken have put into trying to find a ceasefire. There will certainly be more permissiveness with regard to the expansionist tendencies of the Netanyahu government, less security for the Palestinians.
On China, we will see, to begin with, trade problems, and certainly a more belligerent attitude when it comes to the major technological and commercial issues, but I do not want to go on any longer. Thank you very much for your attention.
Link to video: https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-263518
Closing remarks
Thank you, Madam President, thank you ladies and gentlemen, Members of Parliament, for this set of points of view.
I have listened attentively to this long debate with a very large number [of participants], more than 50 interventions – which I believe only you and I, Madam President, have listened to all of them for reasons of our position. Obviously I don’t think there is any other Member who has seen fit to follow the debate beyond his own intervention.
That does not detract from the value of a debate that I have the honour of closing and, of course, please allow me a couple of minutes more so because this will surely be my last intervention in the Plenary.
We talk about the United States, but it is not the same United States under [US President Donald J.] Trump as it was under [former US President Barack] Obama. We talk about Spain, but it is not the same Spain under Franco as it was under [former Spanish Prime Minister Felipe] González.
We talk about Israel, but it is not the same Israel under [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu as it is under [former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon] Pérez. They are the same States, but with different governments.
We would do well to talk about governments, which, in the end, it is true, in some cases – only in some cases – represent the will of their citizens. And this, of course, is the case of the United States. It was not Franco’s Spain, but it is undoubtedly Trump’s United States.
The United States has chosen. It has chosen with full knowledge of the facts because it has already chosen once. They have chosen him again and we have to face a situation that is not the end of the world, certainly not, but it is the beginning of a different world than it could have been, had the Americans made another choice.
We do not know how President Trump will act, but we can guess that he will not increase military aid to Ukraine, right? He will rather decrease it.
Can we reasonably think that he will decrease it or even drastically reduce it? It seems more reasonable [to think so] than the opposite. That puts us in a position where we have to assume a responsibility that we have proclaimed to help a country defend itself from the aggressor.
I know that there are different points of view on this, but history will judge us on whether we have helped Ukraine defend itself or whether we have let it slip. Can we think that Trump will prevent the colonization of the West Bank? Not at all, rather he will push it forward. Can we think that he will try to contain the brutal and disproportionate reaction against the Palestinians? No, we cannot think so, quite the contrary.
Can we think that he will make it easier for lies not to be used as an electoral argument? Not at all, judging by experience. Can we expect that he will fight climate change? Not at all, right? Quite the opposite, it is, as some of you have said, a purely ideological problem. Can we think that he will ensure the security of Europeans? [It is still a] question mark. Can you put your hand in the fire to ensure that the security of Europeans will be guaranteed through NATO with a president like Trump? Can you think that he will guarantee freedom to Ukrainians or rather that he will sit down to dinner with Putin, with Ukraine on the menu? That is rather what will happen.
Well, that is what we have to take into account. This debate has been very interesting, you have all asked for action, but what action are you talking about? Surely not the same one. In some cases, I agree with the action you are asking for. In other cases, not really.
I think that the action that I would like to continue developing is the same one that we started [a few years ago]. Going faster, for example, in the application of the Strategic Compass, which allows us Europeans to equip ourselves with autonomous defense capabilities.
That does not mean that NATO is not the ultimate guarantee of our security. As long as the president of the United States wants it to be, and it remains to be seen. [It does not mean] that we [do not] continue working to increase military capabilities, because Europe is not just an economic union, it is a political union that has responsibilities in its defense as well.
It is not just about producing weapons and ammunition – [it is] that too, but not only that. We cannot outsource our security indefinitely. We have to assume our historical and strategic responsibility.
I think that is what Europeans have to do in the face of the question that President Trump represents, which in some cases is not a question. Some of you think what he proposes is excellent, others are worried. I am among those who are concerned.
They are concerned about an unbridled trade war, they are concerned about the expulsion of tens of thousands of migrants, they are concerned about the abandonment of Ukraine. They are concerned about the continued sacrifice of Palestinian rights, they are concerned about entering into a conflict that will destabilise the world.
It is not the end of the world, it is the beginning of a different world. Yes, the Americans have made their choice and we have to respond to it, knowing that our relationship with the United States, with the people, the American economy is very great. Millions of jobs in Europe depend on the trade relationship with the United States. Our prosperity is linked to theirs and the fight for freedom and democracy too.
For this, ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for having been able to participate in this debate. I thank you for the attention – and the criticism – that I have received over the last 5 years and I hope that you continue to work for a more united, stronger Europe, capable of facing the challenges of the world.
Thank you very much.
Read original text here.
Compliments of the European External Action ServiceThe post EEAS | US: Speech by High Representative/Vice-President Josep Borrell at the EP plenary on transatlantic relations after the US Presidential elections first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.
17
Nov