https://www.politico.eu/article/warsaw- ... hout-nato/
Warsaw to Trump: Let’s make a military deal (without NATO)
Poland’s request to put US boots on ground is a bilateral deal that makes Brussels nervous.
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN 5/30/18
It’s the kind of huge deal that Donald Trump promised would be a hallmark of his presidency: Poland wants a U.S. Army armored division permanently stationed on its territory as a deterrent against Russia, and it’s willing to pay up to $2 billion to make it happen. Warsaw’s pitch, in a 17-page proposal obtained by the Polish news portal Onet, even flatters Trump by quoting abundantly from a speech he gave during a visit to Poland in July 2017.
Potentially even more appealing for the American president is the bilateral nature of the deal — an offer directly from Warsaw to Washington that’s outside NATO and the EU, which Trump has derided as cumbersome and providing more benefit to Europe than to the U.S. on everything from security to trade. But the same aspects of the plan that may prove irresistible to the self-styled dealmaker-in-chief make it fraught for NATO and EU allies. On Russia, they have carefully coordinated policy, including military deployments and economic sanctions, to show a united Western response since Moscow’s invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014. More broadly, the prospect of Trump suddenly cutting bilateral military deals threatens to shake a European system that has viewed its multilateral framework as a crucial safeguard since the end of World War II. The push by Poland — one of just five countries (including the U.S.) that meet NATO’s military spending target — also reflects a rise in prominence of the new, eastern members of the alliance, which favor a more aggressive posture toward Russia.
Asked about the possibility of provoking the Kremlin by establishing a permanent base in the former Eastern Bloc, a defense ministry official from a Western European nation expressed alarm. “We try to avoid the question — not even proposing it,” the official said.
The Polish proposal not only breaks that taboo but also disputes the legal basis of the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act, an agreement intended to ease tensions and bolster cooperation among the former Cold War rivals. Warsaw’s pitch to Trump also calls on the U.S. to consider “moot” a provision that would seem to bar the “permanent stationing of substantial combat forces” in Central and Eastern European countries.
“The Act is not a legally binding document,” the Polish Ministry of National Defense writes in the proposal. “Additionally, by engaging in increasingly aggressive hostilities toward NATO states since the Act’s signing, Moscow has definitively created a new geopolitical status quo that is no longer consistent with the ‘current and foreseeable security environment’ of 1997.”
......
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald- ... da-canada/
Trump blows up G7 agenda
With less than two weeks until leaders of the world’s seven largest advanced economies meet in Canada, agreeing an agenda is proving tricky.
By TOM MCTAGUE, DAVID M. HERSZENHORN AND ANDREW RESTUCCIA 5/30/18
LONDON — With days to go before leaders of the world’s seven largest advanced economies meet in Canada, organizers have a problem — Donald Trump is making it hard to agree on anything.
The annual gathering of the so-called G7 countries is scheduled for June 8 in Quebec, but there remains unprecedented division over the agenda and what joint statements might be issued out of the summit, according to senior officials in Europe and the United States.
And the disruptive force is Trump. From trade rules to climate change, to defense spending and the Iran nuclear deal, the U.S. president has torn up the global consensus that existed under his predecessor, Barack Obama, leaving diplomats scrambling to paper over the cracks in the Western alliance and find any common ground on which to build the event. Failure to come together would break with years of tradition at the G7 summit, which has historically served as an annual affirmation that the biggest Western powers are largely aligned.
“The Canadians have no idea what to do,” one adviser to a G7 leader said on condition of anonymity. A second aide — a diplomat for a different G7 leader who has been working on the agenda for months — said they have never been this close to a summit without having general agreement on what leaders would say coming out of it.
A third official working for another administration involved in the summit said the talks have been “disconnected and unfocused.”
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had initially wanted to use the June summit to promote issues central to his administration’s agenda, such as climate change, women’s empowerment, peace, economic growth for all and jobs for the future. The liberal leader said the G7 leaders had “a responsibility to ensure that all citizens benefit from our global economy.”
However, these goals, backed with various degrees of enthusiasm by the other leaders, clashed with Trump’s protectionist “America First” agenda, rupturing the usually consensual build-up to such events, according to senior officials across the G7.
By April 26, Trudeau had narrowed his focus to gender equality as the “top priority” of Canada’s G7 presidency.
“Women’s empowerment is a key driver of economic growth that works for everyone,” he said. “All of us benefit when women can participate freely, fully, and equally in our economies and society, and supporting and empowering women and girls must be at the heart of the decisions we make.” It’s a goal the White House has gone to great lengths to say it supports. But critics accuse the Trump administration of pursuing policies that harm women — pointing to its actions on reproductive health and equal pay. And the president himself has faced a series of allegations from numerous women of unwanted sexual contact. Trump has strongly denied the accusations.
As of last week, there was no agreement on whether there would even be a final communiqué signed by all leaders — as is tradition — or whether Trudeau would simply issue a statement at the end of the summit instead, one official for a G7 country said. A draft communiqué was dropped because it included elements that weren’t signed off by diplomats.
.....
Gautam