François Heisbourg is the senior advisor for Europe at IISS and a special advisor at the Foundation for Strategic Research. He has published “Europe facing the predators” with Odile Jacob editions.
Compared to its adversaries, Europe has decisive advantages: geopolitician François Heisbourg explains this to David Abiker.
In a significant announcement during the ongoing crisis between the war in Ukraine and the blockade of the strait of Hormuz, German Chancellor’s response to which Donald Trump has announced a reduction of American troops stationed in Germany. Are we witnessing a true turning point post-World War II?
FRANÇOIS HEISBOURG – The short answer is yes. Mr. Trump is known for saying one thing in the morning and the opposite in the afternoon. However, there are some topics on which he remains consistent: his vision of Europe, his view on alliances which he sees as scams. NATO, according to him, is a scam that Europeans have imposed on Americans. He has maintained the same rhetoric for 40 years, whether in written or oral communication on foreign policy and security issues – he hasn’t changed his stance.
What he said yesterday in response to Mr. Merz’s comments was expected. It’s not a surprise. This clearly indicates that Europeans will need to take much more responsibility in defense matters, possibly exclusively, in the coming years, facing a resurgent Russia in the Ukraine conflict, and in general against predators. Americans will no longer be there to hold our hands.
Let’s take a detour to the strait of Hormuz, as it’s the topic of your book. This strait may be blocked for a long time: Donald Trump believes that the blockade is more strategically interesting than bombings.
F.H. – He said the opposite that same morning, while he was being staged under the theme “Mr. Nice Guy, it’s over,” amid explosions all over the place. He may not act based on that statement. But the markets, and this is very interesting, reacted very quickly.
François Heisbourg: “The energy crisis has started, we’re getting into the tough times.”
The price of oil increased by 8% yesterday, and then another 8% between last night and this morning. In less than two days, we went from $110 to $126 per barrel. The energy crisis has begun. The markets have stopped basing their hopes on Trump’s grand statements like “the war is almost over, everything will be settled in the coming days.” The markets were ignoring the disruption in tanker flows. The oil should have risen to $130 or $140 last month. It didn’t because the markets were living in hope, not reality. Now, they have stopped living in hope: they are telling the truth, becoming authentic and sincere.
This means they have stopped listening to Trump.
F.H. – Exactly. Since the price of oil is global, it affects everyone. Even exporting countries are affected. This means that all governments are now faced with what I would call a real energy crisis, instead of the preliminaries we have seen in the past, for example in France where warnings were issued long before any actual consequences arose. We are now getting into the tough times.
You, as a geopolitics expert, do you think these financial markets could act as a counterbalance to geopolitics today?
They constitute a power, for sure. A power because they determine the conditions under which the global economy operates, affecting everyone’s daily lives, and because politicians pay close attention to them.
President Trump is particularly sensitive to signals from the markets. In my book, I explain something that might seem a bit bizarre: that Europe has started building its strength in Greenland.
When Donald Trump threatened to annex it.
F.H. – Indeed. Europeans, very cleverly and effectively, played several cards. We deployed a few hundred European soldiers, including French soldiers – it resonated in the American Congress. But most importantly, we scared the markets.
The markets realized that Europeans might trigger a real trade war. And then, Donald Trump made a U-turn in 24 hours because on American television, you often see the stock indices at the bottom of the screen.
Trump was restrained by the financial markets during the Greenland crisis.
When Trump talked about invading Greenland, the markets plummeted. And the next morning, in Davos, he said, “I am not going to swallow Greenland after all,” and the markets rebounded. The markets had spoken. Europeans had intelligently enlisted their support.
Have the Europeans noted this change? Are they now aware that they can push certain doors open and that they are not condemned to be frightened spectators of American withdrawal?
What I try to explain in my book is that we have more advantages than we think.
The first one, as you just mentioned, is that we can indeed push doors open. The American deficit – the Americans live with a deficit, compared to which the French deficit is a gentle mockery, mainly due to European capital invested in the United States. If this capital no longer flows, it is immediately noticeable.
FRANÇOIS HEISBOURG – “We have won the battle of strategic autonomy.”
But there is another aspect: we have a hard time acknowledging that we are winning battles. Let’s take France. For 40 years, it has been talking about a time when Americans won’t be there to defend Europe. It advocated for Europe’s strategic autonomy. This battle, we have won it. No need to explain anymore, not even to the Poles, the Balts, or even in Germany, that we will have to try to live without Americans. Yet, in France, we struggle to grasp this reality – that we must, ourselves, draw conclusions from this conceptual victory.
Germany has drawn this conclusion and significantly increased its defense budget. In France, military credits have increased on paper much more than they have in terms of actual orders placed in the defense industry and effective expenses for the armed forces. This might change with the new military budget law that will be debated in Parliament in the coming days – and that’s a very positive development. But we struggle to show that we are acting according to this conceptual victory.
Is this linked to a crisis of the state? We see that Germany has managed to set a political line and stick to it despite the obstacles: a complex political situation, the rise of populism, a chancellor elected without triumph, a deep economic crisis, and migratory issues. France, on the other hand, is experiencing a crisis of the state that prevents it from supporting Europe in its power policy.
Is it directly related to a crisis of the state? We witness that Germany has been able to maintain its public finances in order during the euro crisis. This gives them leeway that we don’t have. But you are right: the heart of the issue is the crisis of the state. Germany, despite its political rigidity, a coalition government divided, elected based on a proportional representation that is not conducive to decision-making. People in France calling for proportional representation should see how it works in countries where it is the rule, like the Netherlands or Germany, where it’s very difficult to make political decisions.
