US President Donald Trump’s European trip puts the state of transatlantic relations front and center. There is much handwringing and gnashing of teeth by “Atlanticists”. On the other hand, nationalists from the Unites States and Europe are smiling.

So what is going on?

After World War II, a Cold War mindset arose in the West. Elites on both sides of the Atlantic believed there was an existential battle between communism and capitalism. This perception gave rise to the transatlantic project.

The project had three basic components. First was the formation in 1949 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) by the US, Canada, and a number of European states. This military bloc was to confront the Soviet Union and its allies.

The second component was the formation of a united Europe. Different formulas were put forward that eventually led to the present European Union.

The third component was economic integration across the Atlantic between the US and Europe. The generous Marshall Plan helped Europe get back on its feet after the war thereby providing a market for US goods and an area for US investment.

Republicans and Democrats supporting such transatlantic arrangements fall into the “Atlanticist” camp. The nexus of this camp is Wall Street. The ideology of Atlanticism is based on a combination of finance capitalism and geography as applied to the North Atlantic region.

Atlanticism is part of a larger concept, however, which entails the pursuit of Western global hegemony. The transatlantic region is seen as the Western fortress and the center of a world system. Regions outside the transatlantic area compose the periphery which is to be under the hegemony of the Western fortress.

The Establishment-controlled mainstream press in the US supports Atlanticism and global hegemonism.

Opposition to such a grandiose project was immediate, of course.

In the US, sharp criticism of all three components arose among Republican nationalists. Often referred to as “isolationist” this group in fact supports US global engagement and commerce.

But the nationalists vociferously oppose what they see as “globalist” schemes that would drag the US into unnecessary foreign commitments and entanglements. They bemoan the costs of such burdens to the US taxpayer.

The Atlanticists were from the “Eastern Establishment” historically linked to the financial centers of Wall Street, Boston, and Philadelphia. The major universities in these centers formed an intellectual support base for Atlanticism and for hegemonism packaged as “Liberal Internationalism.”

So, is it a surprise that Trump the nationalist Republican raised concerns about transatlantic relations during his campaign and raises them now while in office?

No. This stance appeals to his fervent base in the nationalist wing of the Republican Party as it has for decades in US politics.

NATO “burden sharing” of costs has been a subject of debate for seven decades. “Forward basing” of US military personnel and equipment has been part of the same debate. Expansion of membership and expansion to “out of area” operations have also been part of the same debate.

What is new here? What is new is Trump’s blunt if not strident public rhetoric calling attention to the dirty laundry in the transatlantic project. For Atlanticists such rhetoric undermines their almost sacred project.

But is the transatlantic project still valid? Trump plainly calls it into question.

World War II ended in 1945. The Cold War ended with the demise of the Soviet Union by 1992. Postwar Europe got back on its economic feet by the 1960s.

Trump’s position recalls the old Republicans of the 1940s and 1950s who are sometimes nicknamed the “paleoconservatives.” Rather on the Stone Age side some would say.

Like the paleoconservatives, Trump today emphasizes US independence and encourages Europeans to take care of themselves. As a practical businessman, he has an eye on the bottom line and does not like excessive costs to US taxpayers and that is good politics with the 99 percent.

Ironically, Trump is giving the Europeans a good reason and a good opportunity to start thinking realistically about their present-day situation.

Should the Europeans drop outdated Atlanticism? Should they create their own EU military defense and discard an obsolete NATO? Should they reinvigorate the EU by reorganizing it along practical decentralized lines suggested years ago by then French president, Charles de Gaulle?

It may be that Trump’s cantankerous questioning of the transatlantic project is as retro as his hair style. But perhaps it is not. All of the so-called post-World War II international “architecture” is creaky at best and more likely rotting away except for dead ender nostalgia buffs.

Seven decades after World War II, the international situation is one of significant change. Asia is rising, Russia is recovering, and the international community desires peace and development.

The evolution of a multipolar and pluralist international system is the main feature of the international landscape today. A global perspective is a realistic requirement. The narrow and self-serving Atlanticist perspective of Western elites belongs in the dustbin of history some would argue.

Given present day international trends, Americans and Europeans must thoughtfully reappraise their relationship. The reappraisal may be agonizing for some but it is essential for all.

Clifford A. Kiracofe is a former senior professional staff member of US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He has taught at China Foreign Affairs University. The author contributed this article to China watch exclusively. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Watch. 

All rights reserved. Copying or sharing of any content for other than personal use is prohibited without prior written permission.