20:03 GMT +326 March 2017
    Preparations for the Munich Security Conference MCSC

    US 'Having No Clear International Policy' Causes 'Great Anxiety in Europe'

    © Sputnik/ Grigoriy Sisoev
    Get short URL

    The 53rd Munich Security Conference has officially kicked off. Hundreds of senior officials from all over the world including NGOs, industry and media representatives and various experts are taking part in the event.

    Radio Sputnik discussed the issue with Stephen Schlesinger, political commentator and a Fellow at the Century Foundation. Commenting on his expectations of the conference, he said:

    "Actually, I have a lot of expectations from this conference. We are lacking clarity today about foreign policy around the world. And this is led I think by the incoherenceof the Trump administration which has generated a great anxiety in Europe and in other places around the globe because it doesn't really have any clear international policies of its own that it has been able to articulate."

    According to the expert, the conference gives an opportunity to find out what kind of policy the United States is going to pursue in the near future. Taking into account the fact, that Donald Trump "in a sense opposed the European Union" and withdrew from the traditional foreign strategy of the United States, Europeans countries are worried "what impact it will have on the future of the European Union."

    "What is happening to the European Union I think that seems to be the principal concern of most of the people who would be at this conference," Schlesinger said. "This is a chance to listen to Vice President Pence speaking about what the Trump administration is trying to accomplish. I think he has a very difficult job because clearly after one month in office very little has been known as to what Trump's principal foreign policy's goals are," he added.

    Participants include new UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, EU High Representative Federica Mogherini and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Among other attendees are German Chancellor Angela Merkel, US Vice President Mike Pence, US Defense Secretary James Mattis and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.


    Munich Security Conference to Kick Off in Germany on Friday
    Russian, German Top Businessmen to Meet at Munich Conference – Ambassador
    politics, Munich Security Conference, United States, Europe
    Community standardsDiscussion
    Comment via FacebookComment via Sputnik
    • Сomment

    All comments

    • avatar
      double bonus
      Europe is probably better off NOT KNOWING
      what the future US policy is going to be?
    • avatar
      From Trump's pronouncements and his administration's actions, it's pretty clear that the former policy of the Outlaw US Empire to seek Full Spectrum Dominance is still its #1 policy goal as none of Obama's destabilization attempts globally were halted. To say the Empire has "no clear international policy," is to prove the gross naivety of the speaker.
    • supportin reply tokarlof1(Show commentHide comment)
      karlof1, most of the foreign officials associated with the security industry also expected a certain level of clear demands from the US Administration under Obama even though a large part of those demands were Napoleonic given the lack of both US force readiness and supportable goals characterizing the Obama Administration. I for one do not know any US military veteran who supports our as-implemented Iraq, Afghan, "Arab Spring" or Ukraine-related US policies of the Obama era, much less any informed U.S. civilians.

      A better headline ought to be, Now That The USA Expects Europe to Pay Its Fair Share for Security, What Does the EU And Its Allies Expect From the USA?

      It should be clear now that the USA's first order of business is sorting out the economy of the nation. The second is to make of our forces a truly 21st century enterprise fitted to addressing the missions of the future. The third is that if possible the US Feds are determined to step back from its role as "policeman of the world" which it emphatically has not been for at least a decade...nor does its people want it to be so.

      It should also be clear that the USA wishes breathing room to address with force if need be the massive domestic corruption of prior regimes to include the last four years of the Bush regime, not simply the slatternly ransacking of the American workforce's stability through selling out to foreign interests in agriculture, the building trades, manufacturing and IT. As an example, being located in farming country, it is clear that the overt claims of the Department of Defense are true, that recruiting of US combat personnel was deliberately focused on the sons & daughters of farmers and rural workers. With those generational ranks culled like cattle, the Dakotas are constantly being invaded by corporate agro-giants looking to acquire now-heirless family farms to transform them into part of their corporate empires. That murder-for-hire of America's own people by its own government has stopped as of this Presidential election.

      It is contingent therefore on foreign regimes to state clearly their expectations and policies which in their own minds should involve the US Federal government and the US State Department as it is an entirely new and in many ways unprecedented ball game.

      Those foreign representatives who sit in silence and mutter about the lack of US "curb service" as if the State Department were car-parking valets deserve to be ignored by the USA. Those days are gone.

      I am sure the new regime will be pleased to respond to any and all formal requests for cooperation and participation in writing. No government has ESP however nor should it be expected to possess such mystic knowledge. Those days are gone forever.

      No more Santa Claus. The USA makes only two-way deals now. We no longer will spend the money to do otherwise. The US government is no longer on the Soros payroll.
    • avatar
      karlof1in reply tosupport(Show commentHide comment)
      support, Very curious reply, thanks. The issue I have with it is the currently observed behavior globally that I see as differing little from that since the initiation of the Cold War in 1943, particularly in South America.
    • supportin reply tokarlof1(Show commentHide comment)
      karlof1, the difference is that most of those new civil servants serving under President Trump who are crafting responses to the requirements and demands of other nations now are from trusted elements of the private sector which has not happened since Herbert Hoover's day; in fact it is one of the ironies of hitory that FDR takes credit for social policies Hoover pioneered in response not only to the 1929 Crash but also in response to the downplayed but nevertheless highly significant Louisiana Great Flood which did ten times more damage than Katrina to that region to the extent that it massively affected the Fed's abilitiy to address and curtail the rise of National Socialism in Germany.

      In any event and to clarify through shift of emphasis, since the Second World War the State Department like political parties formulate what they view as an aesthetically coherent and consistent bundle of policies which create unfortunate "all or nothing" non-deals with oftentimes the presumed beneficiary state of the USA's largesse must accept irrelevant or indeed harmful sub-elements of the overall treaty or clustered bundle of agreements which undermine proper relations being maintained.

      This aesthetic is predicated on bundling quid pro quos and side-deals with the main thrust of preferably simple point-by-point separate agreements which latter offer the admittedly unprecedented benefit of one insignificant part of a policy not killing off negotiations.

      This latter, unbundled, point-by-point or "line-item veto" based approach is how a regular business operates not diplomatic corps of Davos elitists with seconday agendae. The unbundled approach has all quid pro quos open and examinable by the constituencies in both negotiating countries, they work on the KIS (keep it simple) principle and apples do not end up mixed in with the oranges figuratively speaking.

      As a business psychology dominates the new regime, the take-it-or-leave-it approach is being abandoned in favour of actual negotiations not diktats. There is no disruptive transformation for its own sake in play now: that is Clinton's, Soros' and Obama's approach. Doing the hard work of crafting stability within the framework of internationally accepted law is the order of the day and hopefully for the next eight years and beyond. Most importantly, ineffectual and work-proof polemics no longer write the treaty-crafting rules but rather two words: "What works?"

      It should be clear from President Trump's loud, clear and resonant statement that the USA is no longer in the business of exporting US culture and values to other countries anymore. Diplomatic & trade relations are to be conducted only on a mutually acceptable basis with no bundled social and cultural programme attached. The Age of Truthyisms is dead and gone; truth is now the order of the day.

      The USA has no other choice, and indeed it never did. Since LBJ all that has characterized most US diplomatic dealings has consisted of 30% meat, 20% incomprehensible gibberish and/or potentially suicidal experimentation with other countries' patience, and 50% cosmetic packaging.

      The purges at the State Department underway now are in keeping with what is necessary to change the tone and tenor of our dealings in hopes of securing the bonds of amity between the USA and those with whom it deals diplomatically and in trade. The nature of State's transformation is along the lines of abandoning the Cloud Cuckooland of madhouse altruistic idealism and is changing to a policy of hammering the organisation into a fit diplomatic tool which delivers the goods, not simply re-branding the old system.

      The system in place until the end of Obama's reign is IMO why no good for the long run came out of State. It was a separate empire apart from the US government in many ways. It has a recruiting system separate from the Civil Service Exams, its accountability was of a fluid and even on a deniable basis, and it even had its own intelligence service. If not changed out altogether it is certainly undergoing massive changes in how State does business.

      I hope this clarifies my earlier posting. It does reflect the basic reality of the situation IMO.

      America made a mess of Latin American relations and did much damage thereby. I participated with the assistance of CIS's international trade cevelopment committee CTEC, a Russia-based trade organisation, who sponsored a conference of over 100 CIS businessmen to come to Miami for a conference with their American opposite numbers for the very first time: I was the only American who showed.

      As a result, the Russian Federation decided at this meeting to turn all their attentions to Latin America and the rest is history.

      I worked for Turbine Power Systems of Fremont, Nebraska as a gas turbine marketer and technical documents writer specializing in the marinized Klimov TB3-117 engine for maritime vessel powering--catamaran shuttle vessels, etc. and as such was the doleful sad-eyed puppy-like "funny guy" at this meeting of Russian entrepreneurial luminaries. The Russian Federation signed a pact with MERCOSUR that very month. I believe the meeting was held in 1996 around Western Xmas time.

      The outstanding irony in that sunny clime of seasonal joy was that all the radio seemed to play in the hotel lobbies and restaurants was New Order's hit single "Regret."

      It took a bit of time to get over the fact that I had witnessed the chance for a free-trade agreement between the CIS and the USA thrown away by not the US business community (they never even were briefed about this event!) but by Presidential edict. A free-trade treaty was within the realm of possibility at that time. It would have been a greater victory for humanity than Nixon's trade treaty with China in 1971.

      That is yet another evil misdeed for which to call the Scarface Clintons out.
    Show new comments (0)