From the President of the Council of Foreign Relations...

Trump's Foreign-Policy 'Adhocracy'

Richard Haass, one of the few foreign-policy experts the president says he respects, had some harsh words for the administration's early stumbles.

YONI APPELBAUM 

The Trump administration’s lack of structure or experience is hobbling its ability to conduct an effective foreign policy, argues Richard Haass, president of the Council of Foreign Relations. “I think it is a recipe for disaster to have multiple centers of authority, to have informal lines of authority,” he said. “I think this administration is doing itself a disservice.

“It’s a decentralized, improvisational administration,” Haass said; he dubbed it an “adhocracy.”

Haass, who served as a high-ranking State Department official in the administration of President George W. Bush, was sharply critical of the results of that organizational incoherence. “It’s very hard for the administration to have a single doctrine or policy,” he said, citing rival factions within the administration and widespread vacancies in its senior ranks.

 

Haass was speaking Monday at the Aspen Ideas Festival, which is co-hosted by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic. His remarks amounted to a striking rebuke from a leading foreign-policy analyst, who was reportedlyconsidered for the job of deputy secretary of state by the Trump transition team. “I respect Richard Haass, who’s on your show a lot,” Trump said on Morning Joe last year. “And I like him a lot. I have a few people that I really like and respect.”

Haass noted that the Trump administration could have built a disciplined process to compensate for its relative lack of experience. Trump instead modeled his administration on his decades of success in business, where he relied on a similarly improvisational style, Haass said. The result has been adhocracy.

“Virtually no one in the administration has any interagency experience,” he pointed out. “Some of them have never been in government before, including the president and the secretary of state. … If you know that going in, this ought to be the most tightly structured administration in history to compensate for it. Instead, it’s the most loosely structured I’ve seen.” He added that, to judge by its moves, the administration has not yet acknowledged the problems it faces. Indeed, hours after Haass spoke, the White House released a terse statement alleging Syrian preparations for another chemical-weapons attack. The New York Times reported that “several military officials were caught off guard” by the late-night announcement, though the White House said Tuesday morning it had coordinated with the relevant agencies.

That’s left America’s allies, as well as its rivals, unsettled. “It’s the number one, two, and three question I get around the world,” said Haass. World leaders, he said, are trying to figure out whether Trump represents a permanent shift in American policy, or a temporary aberration. “They are trying to get a fix on us.” The combination of inexperienced personnel and an incoherent structure makes that difficult.

And don’t look to well-established bureaucracies to compensate. For all the talk about an international community, domestic institutions, and established norms, Haass argued, the reality is that individual presidents still exercise tremendous discretion. That means that what Trump decides to do—or declines to pursue—remains enormously consequential. “There’s almost nothing that’s inevitable,” he said, citing the first President Bush’s resolute response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.

“A couple of days before at the Cabinet meeting, that wasn’t obvious that that was going to be the outcome,” he recalled. He pointed to the magnitude of the military effort involved, and the widespread press predictions of thousands of American casualties. “If someone else had been president, it’s not axiomatic … that we were going to do what we did.”

And Trump’s decisions are having a similar impact today. In its early months, the Trump administration has been aggressive in remaking its foreign policy around interests, and not principles, reversing decades of U.S. positions in multiple realms.

“I’m a card-carrying realist,” Haass said, “but I think we’ve taken that way too far. We ought to stand up for things we believe.”

Floresta Silenciosa, Floresta degradada

‘Floresta Silenciosa’ alerta sobre impactos causados pela degradação na Amazônia

Ferramenta online desenvolvida por jornalistas e cientistas expõe de forma clara e didática como o fogo e a retirada ilegal de madeira contribuem para deixar a floresta morta (Foto: 
 Chico Batata).

FABIO PONTES
21/06/2017 01:12

 

São Paulo –  O processo de degradação da Amazônia a partir de agora pode ser acompanhado por uma plataforma online. Por meio da Floresta Silenciosa, o internauta tem uma noção de como essa destruição provocada pela ação humana e às vezes natural vem comprometendo todo o equilíbrio do principal bioma brasileiro. As análises são feitas a partir dos impactos nas florestas do Pará.

O lançamento da Floresta Silenciosa, idealizada pela startup de jornalismo Ambiental Media em parceria com o InfoAmazônia, aconteceu na terça-feira (20) em São Paulo e foi acompanhado pela Amazônia Real.

Os dados foram levantados a partir dos estudos de cientistas brasileiros e estrangeiros que integram a Rede Amazônia Sustentável (RAS). O resultado da pesquisa foi publicado na revista “Nature”.

“A degradação é um assunto tão pouco debatido e pouco explorado, por exemplo pela mídia, e gerar visualizações de dados é uma forma de tornar isso mais palpável para as pessoas”, diz o jornalista Thiago Medaglia, coordenador editorial da Floresta Silenciosa e fundador da Ambiental Media.

“Nós temos muitos mapas do desmatamento na Amazônia, mas pouquíssimo mapas da degradação. Os mapas da degradação são muito técnicos. O nosso é mais midiático, no bom sentido”, completa ele.  

 

Fugindo do fogo, Saracura-três-potes (Aramides cajaneus) se refugia em sítio em Roraima 

(Foto: Jorge Macêdo)

A escolha de Floresta Silenciosa para nomear a ferramenta se dá justamente por conta de um dos principais impactos da degradação na Amazônia: a morte e a fuga de espécies animais nativas daquela área atingida.

Se em florestas o som dos cantos de aves e o sussurro dos mamíferos são a sinfonia da mata, em áreas degradadas predomina quase o silêncio pela ausência destes animais.

“Quando a gente fala que a floresta está lá, mas que ela está silenciosa, ou seja, que as espécies não estão mais lá, outro processo que acontece é que espécies que não são da floresta começam a invadi-la”, afirma Renata Pardini, do Instituto de Biociências da Universidade de São Paulo (USP).   

Para medir os danos da degradação, os cientistas elaboraram o Déficit de Valor de Conservação. Este cálculo foi feito apenas em áreas do Pará, estado onde a Amazônia sofre com pressões de atividades como a extração ilegal de madeira e o desmatamento para se abrir pastos ou áreas de cultivo.

O fogo é uma das principais formas de degradação das matas. Neste caso não são somente os grandes incêndios florestais ou os usados após o desmate de uma área para limpá-la. O grande problema são os “fogos rasteiros”, com alto potencial de destruição.

“Quando a gente pensa na Amazônia pensamos no fogo para o desmatamento. Agora, o fogo que a gente está falando é o fogo rasteiro. Ele vai ter, no máximo, 30, 40 centímetros a altura da chama, mas que vai causar uma mortalidade tanto da fauna como da flora enorme” ressalta Erika Berenguer, da Universidade de Lancaster, em Londres.

Em agosto de 2016 a Amazônia Real visitou a fazenda Tanguro, em Mato Grosso, onde o Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (Ipam) desenvolve estudos práticos sobre o impacto das queimadas no processo de degradação da floresta, e a sua difícil e lenta regeneração. Leia aqui.

Degradação: menos vida na floresta

 

Queimada experimental mostra a degradação da floresta em estudo do Ipam na fazenda Tanguro, em Mato Grosso (Foto: Fábio Pontes/Amazônia Real)

A retirada seletiva de árvores num primeiro momento pode não representar grandes impactos, mas se ela ocorrer de forma extensiva a floresta tende a perder sua capacidade de recuperação. A abertura de grandes áreas no meio da floresta, chamadas de fragmentação, para a extração madeireira clandestina é outro potencial de danos.

“A degradação é produto de uma série de fatores Os fatores estão interagindo. A fragmentação da floresta cria o efeito de borda. Por quilômetros aquela floresta vai estar sofrendo influência dessa área que foi aberta. Entra mais luz, vai ressecar, o microclima. Vai ser diferente, as espécies vão ser diferentes”, diz Joice Ferreira, pesquisadora da Embrapa Amazônia Oriental, no Pará, e uma das coordenadoras da RAS.

A perda da biodiversidade é a característica mais clara dos efeitos da degradação. Segundo Renata Pardini, este processo provoca uma perda superior a 30% da fauna e da flora originais. Ao se olhar uma floresta degradada de cima pode-se ter a impressão de que o seu sistema biológico funciona de forma perfeita. Mas as aparências enganam.

É nessa perda de biodiversidade que é calculado o Déficit de Valor de Conservação pela plataforma Floresta Silenciosa.

“Este déficit é mais ou menos isso. Ele não é um mapa do desmatamento. O que estamos falando é que tem floresta, mas só que nestes lugares bem vermelhinhos [do mapa] essa floresta tem um déficit de mais de 30% de biodiversidade. Essa floresta está lá, mas ela não tem a integridade do sistema”, diz Renata Pardini, da USP.

“O que se considera hoje [em impactos na Amazônia] é o desmatamento. A avaliação é: se ali eu tenho uma porção de floresta, então onde eu tenho floresta se tem 100% da biodiversidade. A novidade do trabalho é justamente essa. Eu tenho aquela quantidade de floresta mas eu não tenho 100% da biodiversidade”, completa Joice Ferreira, pesquisadora da Embrapa no Pará.

Outro agravante provocado pela degradação: a perda de capacidade da floresta de estocar carbono. De acordo com as cientistas da RAS, com parte da Amazônia deixando de exercer uma de seus principais “serviços” o Brasil coloca em risco suas metas de redução nas emissões de gases de efeito estufa.

O estoque de carbono em florestas degradadas é bem menor do que na comparação com áreas preservadas; em média, 40% menos.

Pesquisa do Ipam na fazenda Tanguro, em Mato Grosso, mostra como fica a floresta degradada 

(Foto: Fábio Pontes/Amazônia Real)

Esta matéria foi atualizada às 10h15 

HACIA UNA NUEVA EUROPA

 Trump y el eje franco-alemán

 

JORGE TAMAMES

Desde que Donald Trump tomó posesión de su cargo, parte de la oposición estadounidense ha tomado la costumbre de referirse a Angela Merkel como la “líder del mundo libre”. Su idea es que este título, normalmente reservado para el inquilino de la Casa Blanca, resulta más apropiado para la canciller alemana que para un multimillonario grosero e incoherente. De aquí a 2020, Occidente necesita refugiarse en liderazgo alternativos.

 

Este ensalzamiento es prematuro. Merkel lleva meses criticando la deriva de Estados Unidos, al tiempo que promulga una Unión Europea más independiente. El electorado alemán recibe estos gestos con simpatía y Trump responde con exabruptos en Twitter, pero el orden internacional apenas se altera. Reino Unido y Canadá se han desmarcado de la diplomacia alemana en su intento de aislar a Trump tras su rechazo del Acuerdo de París. El gobierno español también ha optado por ponerse de perfil. Alemania sola carece del peso para contrarrestar a Trump.

 

Ahora Francia irrumpe en escena. La elección de Emmanuel Macron y su reciente victoria en las elecciones legislativas parece haber insuflado vida al eje franco-alemán. El nuevo presidente no ha escatimado en gestos teatrales para mostrar distanciarse de su homólogo estadounidense. Según Natalie Nougayrède, exdirectora de Le Monde, Macron y Merkel están preparando a la UE para una “década dorada” de cooperación, similar a la que propulsaron François Mitterrand y el recientemente fallecido

Helmut Kohl. El mundo anglosajón, sumido en un nacionalismo cerril, quedaría excluido de esta Arcadia feliz.

 

Desde la crisis de 2008, la hegemonía de Berlín ha hecho del eje franco-alemán un concepto que, como señala The Economist, servía “para esconder la fuerza de Alemania y la debilidad de Francia.” Hoy París tiene la oportunidad de reposicionarse. El Brexit hace de Francia la única potencia nuclear y miembro permanente del Consejo de Seguridad en la UE. Aunque Francia no puede contrarrestar el poderío económico alemán, tiene mayor proyección exterior ante la creciente inestabilidad del vecindario europeo.

 

Macron, además, no se opone a la agenda económica de Berlín. A diferencia de su predecesor, François Hollande, que prometió acabar con las políticas de austeridad y no tardó en tragarse sus palabras, el nuevo presidente ha asegurado desde el primer momento que aprobará reformas impopulares –como un abaratamiento del despido que le valdrá la oposición de la calle francesa–. A cambio, Macron exige a Berlín comprometerse con la gobernanza de la zona euro, creando un ministro de finanzas y un presupuesto común, y desarrollando la unión bancaria. “El euro está incompleto y no sobrevivirá sin grandes reformas”, advirtió durante la campaña presidencial.

 

En declaraciones recientes, la canciller se ha mostrado favorable a las propuestas de Macron. Pero en Alemania persiste el escepticismo ante una mayor integración económica de la zona euro. La coyuntura es peligrosa para el establishment galo, cuya apuesta por Macron ha dinamitado el sistema de partidos de la V República. “Si Francia se ve abogada a una deflación competitiva prolongada, Marine Le Pen puede convertirse en presidenta la próxima vez”, advierte Martin Wolf en Financial Times. Para Wolf, el problema de fondo es la excesiva competitividad alemana. Como muestra el think tank Bruegel, la relación entre productividad y salarios de la mano de obra alemana tiene un marcado sesgo deflacionista. De nuevo Wolf: “la zona euro necesita un gran aumento en salarios alemanes. ¿Ocurrirá esto? Me temo que no”.

 

 

Hasta hace poco, el alza del socialdemócrata Martin Schultz abría la posibilidad de un relevo de poder en Berlín tras las elecciones federales del 24 de septiembre. El SPD aboga por relajar las políticas de austeridad y acomodar las propuestas de Macron. Pero el “efecto Schultz” ha pinchado en tres elecciones regionales a lo largo de 2017 y Merkel parece encaminada a su cuarto mandato como canciller.

El 7 y 8 de julio se celebra la cumbre del G-20 en Hamburgo. La sintonía entre Francia y Alemania será clave para el perfil que Merkel intenta proyectar en la era Trump. Si pretende aislar a Washington, aunque solo sea puntualmente, Berlín necesita sumar apoyos en la UE. París es un punto de partida ineludible.

Declaración del Grupo Avila sobre la situación en Venezuela

GRUPO AVILA
Caracas, 14 de Junio

Frente a la brutal represión del gobierno y la grave crisis de gobernabilidad en Venezuela

Ante los graves acontecimientos por los que atraviesa el país y la acelerada profundización de la crisis provocada por la propuesta fraudulenta e inconstitucional de una Asamblea Constituyente, hacemos un nuevo llamado a la comunidad internacional, en especial a los gobiernos representados en la OEA, a actuar de manera muy firme para contener las intenciones del gobierno de Nicolás Maduro de avanzar con una iniciativa que no sólo viola la Constitución Nacional sino que pretende consolidar una dictadura sanguinaria en nuestro país.

La represión y las atrocidades cometidas por los cuerpos de seguridad, especialmente por la Guardia Nacional, contra jóvenes manifestantes que por más de dos meses han tomado las calles,  ya han cobrado hasta la fecha cerca de 70 asesinados y un muy elevado número de heridos. Los detenidos pasan de 3.000 y algunos de ellos sometidos a juicios militares, contrariando las garantías constitucionales. 

Por todo lo anterior, hacemos un llamado a los gobiernos democráticos del hemisferio, así como a las organizaciones de la sociedad civil dedicadas a la preservación y defensa de los derechos humanos, para que no cesen de elevar su voz de condena frente a estos atropellos y se sumen a las demandas de sanciones internacionales directas contra los represores y violadores de aquellos derechos.

Tanto en la OEA como en la ONU, los relatores especiales encargados de la observación de los derechos humanos sobre distintos ámbitos, han expresado interés en visitar Venezuela para observar de forma directa las violaciones perpetradas por el gobierno. Es necesario insistir en estas peticiones que la dictadura se niega a aceptar.

En fechas próximas tendrá lugar la Asamblea General de la OEA y se reanudará también la Reunión de Consulta de Ministros de Relaciones Exteriores. Es ésta una nueva oportunidad para que los gobiernos del hemisferio  se expresen haciendo un firme llamado a la restauración del orden democrático y la búsqueda de una perentoria solución al conflicto que padece Venezuela, adoptando medidas de presión más efectivas que disuadan al gobierno a renunciar a sus pretensiones de mantener el estado de cosas actual y a entablar negociaciones con las fuerzas democráticas con vistas a acordar mecanismos concretos de carácter político, institucional y económico que saquen al país del peligroso trance en que está.

Otras instancias regionales, como Mercosur, están también comprometidas en este esfuerzo por preservar la institucionalidad democrática venezolana y disponen igualmente de adecuados instrumentos diplomáticos y jurídicos que podrían ser aplicados frente a la grave situación venezolana.

Caracas, 14 de junio 2017

Bonanza y crisis: la interminable tragedia populista latinoamericana

AN INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT BREXIT

UK Election Result May Lead to a More Democratic and Accountable Brexit

09 June 2017

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Director, Chatham House

But continued antipathy towards immigration means free movement and membership of the single market remain off the table.

Theresa May was chosen by the Conservative Party last autumn to be the safe pair of hands that would navigate Britain through the difficult waters of Brexit. She had called yesterday’s snap election to seek a popular mandate to conduct the negotiation and to buy time to implement it thereafter. She had laid out the broad outlines of the UK’s negotiating position in her Lancaster House speech on 17 January and in her letter on 29 March to European Council President Donald Tusk. 

Having made Brexit the rationale for the election, she nevertheless made no effort during the campaign to explain how she would manage the negotiation or what a successful deal would look like. Instead, she tried to keep her powder dry for the start of the post-election negotiations and simply emphasize her own competence, believing that the true message of the referendum vote was the need to heal a divided Britain.

This might have seemed like a winning formula, as the early polls indicated. Unfortunately for her, she presided over a disastrous misstep in drafting the Conservative manifesto – alienating older supporters and angering colleagues and party members with an unpopular proposal to overhaul social care costs, branded a ‘dementia tax’. She also failed to connect personally with many voters during the campaign. The terrorist attacks did not strengthen the Conservative vote, as the Labour Party turned attention to her role in overseeing police cuts. 

In the end, the Conservative Party has lost its outright majority, and has had to rely on gains in Scotland to secure a working majority in a hung parliament.The prime minister’s political standing has been badly damaged. She has lost a key ally in Ben Gummer, who helped draft the manifesto and would have played a critical role in the Brexit negotiations. She will form a government with the support of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of Northern Ireland. But she now has to turn her focus immediately back to the Brexit negotiations while presiding over an angry and restive party and with serious doubts as to whether she will lead the party into the next election, whenever it takes place.

In contrast, Jeremy Corbyn gave voice to public fears of another five years of Conservative budget-cutting and austerity, and in Bernie Sanders-style, channelled the passion of the young for a more hopeful future. Where Theresa May surprised ‘on the downside’, he surprised ‘on the upside’. He also offered a goody bag of highly popular electoral bribes – such as nationalizing the railways and abolishing university tuition fees – without worrying too much about how to deliver them. Whereas May can point to the fact that she secured a larger share of the vote (close to 43%) than Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair in their best elections, this is scant consolation when Corbyn has been able to increase the Labour vote to 41% and repel the expected increase in the Conservative parliamentary majority.

Where this leaves the UK and Brexit

A key dynamic of the election is that the collapsing UKIP vote did not go solidly to the Conservatives; rather, in seats like Hartlepool and Newcastle, a large number went back to Labour. They did so not because voters had second thoughts about Brexit, but because Jeremy Corbyn appeared consistent and committed in his long-standing Euroscepticism (he was a half-hearted Remainer during the campaign) and credible in his statements that he would not go back on the referendum result. Passing this test, he was able to turn the political agenda to other issues, such as austerity and inequality.

The result is that Britain’s two major parties once again dominate politics, collectively representing some 85% of the vote on a near 70% turnout. And both are formally committed to following through with Brexit. 

The question, then, is not whether Brexit will now happen, but what sort of a deal this election result might produce. The negotiations will clearly be more difficult for Theresa May to manage domestically. Her party still contains fierce Brexiteers, who will challenge every concession. But the proportion of Conservative MPs who voted to Remain and who want a pragmatic Brexit is higher than expected. 

For his part, Corbyn will have to tread carefully too. This morning, he stated his desire for a pragmatic outcome, saying Labour will be looking for a ‘jobs first Brexit – which means a good trade deal’. On the other hand, a larger number of Labour MPs now represent constituencies which voted by large majorities to leave, and whose voters could abandon Labour again if it changed course on Brexit.  

The net effect of these conflicting pressures is likely to be the search for a pragmatic deal with the EU that can pass the threshold of a significant majority across the whole Parliament and not just in the Conservative Party. To be acceptable domestically, this deal must minimize the economic risks inherent in Brexit and not put Parliament in a position where it is forced to test Theresa May’s proposition that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’. If it came to such an outcome, there is now a chance that Parliament would hand the deal back to the electorate in a second referendum.

There are some other considerations. This snap general election does not in any way challenge the referendum vote, which was intensely debated over a far longer period. Antipathy among a majority of Britons to uncontrolled immigration has not receded. This means that there is still no chance Prime Minister May will go back on her refusal to accept free movement of labour from the EU. The Labour leadership also accept this position. As a result, British membership of the single market remains off the table. 

The final deal that the British side will seek, therefore, will aim to combine the agreement to withdraw from the EU with some complex form of enhanced free trade agreement. Deciding how to supervise this agreement will be no easier than before. The Conservative Party in particular will not accept the primacy of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over UK domestic legislation. 

Agreeing on the size of the UK's 'exit bill' will also remain contentious. But the government may have more space to offer a preferential deal on EU migrants coming into the UK to support key sectors, such as the NHS, agriculture and the financial sector. And having the DUP guaranteeing the government's operating majority means the UK will be under added pressure to reach a compromise on border arrangements and regulatory convergence which avoids a 'hard border' with the Irish Republic - although the DUP may well oppose a special arrangement in Northern Ireland if it is seen to undermine its place in the Union.

Possible EU27 responses

This raises the question of how the EU27 will now approach the negotiations. The Article 50 clock continues to count down to 29 March 2019, and there is deep frustration in Brussels and EU capitals that so much time has been lost for what is now so little reason. They will worry about the ability of a weak UK government to manage domestic compromises on key issues and feel their position in negotiations, in which they already have the upper hand, has only been strengthened.

In the meantime, the EU has moved on. Emmanuel Macron's election in France along with the prospects of Brexit have given new energy and optimism to the prospects for deepening EU and eurozone integration across a range of policy areas. With this renewed confidence, the EU27 could choose to play hardball with the UK on the budget or the future rights of EU citizens wanting to work in the EU. 

Hopefully they won't. Not even a weakened Theresa May could accept EU extra-territorial jurisdiction over EU citizens living in the country. And there is nothing to be gained now from pushing a wounded UK and weakened Theresa May into the corner. The EU27 are as keen to move on beyond Brexit as are the Brits. A failed Brexit negotiation is no more in the EU27’s interest than it is in the UK’s. And tying up the withdrawal agreement by the end of March 2019, as scheduled, will allow the European Parliament elections in May 2019 to go ahead without the severe complication of the UK as a member.

The most difficult political question for the EU27 is how to ensure that the UK pays some form of cost for leaving, such that its position outside the EU is less advantageous than being a member was. Theresa May says she has already accepted to pay the cost. By choosing not to be a member of the Single Market, the UK will lose influence over the rules by which British exports of goods and services gain access to their major market. This will increase the regulatory burdens for UK-based businesses and have negative knock-on effects for foreign investment.

The recent British tensions with the European Commission, evident in the May-Juncker dinner on 26 April, imply that the EU27 did not believe this was a sufficient cost. Constant EU carping that the Brits are insufficiently prepared for the negotiation masks a deeper fear that, outside the jurisdiction of the ECJ, the UK might yet find a way to make a success of Brexit at the EU's expense. 

But, just one month after that dinner, the EU is in a far stronger position economically and politically. Perhaps it can afford to let the UK pay the price of Brexit over time rather than up front, without risking damage to its own future cohesion.

If so, Theresa May could yet carve a path for Britain from a botched election to a Brexit outcome that reflects as well as possible the contradictory aspirations of the British electorate.

A NEW G-6 GROUP ?

Paris Disagreement: Donald Trump's Triumph of Stupidity

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other G-7 leaders did all they could to convince Trump to remain part of the Paris Agreement. But he didn't listen. Instead, he evoked deep-seated nationalism and plunged the West into a conflict deeper than any since World War II.  

By SPIEGEL Staff

Until the very end, they tried behind closed doors to get him to change his mind. For the umpteenth time, they presented all the arguments -- the humanitarian ones, the geopolitical ones and, of course, the economic ones. They listed the advantages for the economy and for American companies. They explained how limited the hardships would be.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel was the last one to speak, according to the secret minutes taken last Friday afternoon in the luxurious conference hotel in the Sicilian town of Taormina -- meeting notes that DER SPIEGEL has been given access to. Leaders of the world's seven most powerful economies were gathered around the table and the issues under discussion were the global economy and sustainable development.

The newly elected French president, Emmanuel Macron, went first. It makes sense that the Frenchman would defend the international treaty that bears the name of France's capital: The Paris Agreement. "Climate change is real and it affects the poorest countries," Macron said.
Then, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reminded the U.S. president how successful the fight against the ozone hole had been and how it had been possible to convince industry leaders to reduce emissions of the harmful gas.

Finally, it was Merkel's turn. Renewable energies, said the chancellor, present significant economic opportunities. "If the world's largest economic power were to pull out, the field would be left to the Chinese," she warned. Xi Jinping is clever, she added, and would take advantage of the vacuum it created. Even the Saudis were preparing for the post-oil era, she continued, and saving energy is also a worthwhile goal for the economy for many other reasons, not just because of climate change.

But Donald Trump remained unconvinced. No matter how trenchant the argument presented by the increasingly frustrated group of world leaders, none of them had an effect. "For me," the U.S. president said, "it's easier to stay in than step out." But environmental constraints were costing the American economy jobs, he said. And that was the only thing that mattered. Jobs, jobs, jobs.

At that point, it was clear to the rest of those seated around the table that they had lost him. Resigned, Macron admitted defeat. "Now China leads," he said.

Still, it is likely that none of the G-7 heads of state and government expected the primitive brutality Trump would stoop to when announcing his withdrawal from the international community. Surrounded by sycophants in the Rose Garden at the White House, he didn't just proclaim his withdrawal from the climate agreement, he sowed the seeds of international conflict. His speech was a break from centuries of Enlightenment and rationality. The president presented his political statement as a nationalist manifesto of the most imbecilic variety. It couldn't have been any worse.

A Catastrophe for the Climate

His speech was packed with make-believe numbers from controversial or disproven studies. It was hypocritical and dishonest. In Trump's mind, the climate agreement is an instrument allowing other countries to enrich themselves at the expense of the United States. "I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris," he said. Trump left no doubt that the well-being of the American economy is the only value he understands. It's no wonder that the other countries applauded when Washington signed the Paris Agreement, he said. "We don't want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore. And they won't be. They won't be."

Trump's withdrawal is a catastrophe for the climate. The U.S. is the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases -- behind China -- and is now no longer part of global efforts to put a stop to climate change. It's America against the rest of the world, along with Syria and Nicaragua, the only other countries that haven't signed the Paris deal.

But the effects on the geopolitical climate are likely to be just as catastrophic. Trump's speech provided only the most recent proof that discord between the U.S. and Europe is deeper now than at any time since the end of World War II.

Now, the Western community of values is standing in opposition to Donald Trump. The G-7 has become the G-6. The West is divided.

For three-quarters of a century, the U.S. led and protected Europe. Despite all the mistakes and shortcomings exhibited by U.S. foreign policy, from Vietnam to Iraq, America's claim to leadership of the free world was never seriously questioned.

That is now no longer the case. The U.S. is led by a president who feels more comfortable taking part in a Saudi Arabian sword dance than he does among his NATO allies. And the estrangement has accelerated in recent days. First came his blustering at the NATO summit in Brussels, then the disagreement over the climate deal in Sicily followed by Merkel's speech in Bavaria, in which she called into question America's reliability as a partner for Europe. A short time later, Trump took to Twitter to declare a trade war -- and now, he has withdrawn the United States from international efforts to combat climate change.

A Downward Pointing Learning Curve

Many had thought that Trump could be controlled once he entered the White House, that the office of the presidency would bring him to reason. Berlin had placed its hopes in the moderating influence of his advisers and that there would be a sharp learning curve. Now that Trump has actually lived up to his threat to leave the climate deal, it is clear that if such a learning curve exists, it points downward.

The chancellor was long reluctant to make the rift visible. For Merkel, who grew up in communist East Germany, the alliance with the U.S. was always more than political calculation, it reflected her deepest political convictions. Now, she has -- to a certain extent, at least -- terminated the trans-Atlantic friendship with Trump's America.

In doing so, the German chancellor has become Trump's adversary on the international stage. And Merkel has accepted the challenge when it comes to trade policy and the quarrel over NATO finances. Now, she has done so as well on an issue that is near and dear to her heart: combating climate change.

Merkel's aim is that of creating an alliance against Trump. If she can't convince the U.S. president, her approach will be that of trying to isolate him. In Taormina, it was six countries against one. Should Trump not reverse course, she is hoping that the G-20 in Hamburg in July will end 19:1. Whether she will be successful is unclear.

Trump has identified Germany as his primary adversary. Since his inauguration in January, he has criticized no country -- with the exception of North Korea and Iran -- as vehemently as he has Germany. The country is "bad, very bad," he said in Brussels last week. Behind closed doors at the NATO summit, Trump went after Germany, saying there were large and prosperous countries that were not living up to their alliance obligations.

And he wants to break Germany's economic power. The trade deficit with Germany, he recently tweeted, is "very bad for U.S. This will change."

An Extreme Test

Merkel's verdict following Trump's visit to Europe could hardly be worse. There has never been an open break with America since the end of World War II; the alienation between Germany and the U.S. has never been so large as it is today. When Merkel's predecessor, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, refused to provide German backing for George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, his rebuff was limited to just one single issue. It was an extreme test of the trans-Atlantic relationship, to be sure, but in contrast to today, it was not a quarrel that called into question commonly held values like free trade, minority rights, press freedoms, the rule of law -- and climate policies.

To truly understand the consequences of Trump's decision, it is important to remember what climate change means for humanity -- what is hidden behind the temperature curves and emission-reduction targets.

Climate change means that millions are threatened with starvation because rain has stopped falling in some regions of the planet. It means that sea levels are rising and islands and coastal zones are flooding. It means the melting of the ice caps, more powerful storms, heatwaves, water shortages and deadly epidemics. All of that leads to conflicts over increasingly limited resources, to flight and to migration.

In the U.S., too, there were plenty of voices warning the president of the consequences of his decision, Trump's daughter Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner among them. Others included cabinet members like Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, along with pretty much the country's entire business elite.
Companies from Exxon and Shell to Google, Apple and Amazon to Wal-Mart and PepsiCo all appealed to Trump to not isolate the U.S. on climate policy. They are worried about international competitive disadvantages in a world heading toward green energy, whether the U.S. is along for the ride or not. Google, Microsoft and Apple have long since begun drawing their energy from renewable sources, with the ultimate goal of complete freedom from fossil fuels. Wind and solar farms are booming in the U.S. -- and hardly an investor can be found anymore for coal mining.

A long list of U.S. states, led by California, have charted courses that are in direct opposition to Trump's climate policy. According to a survey conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, almost three-quarters of Americans are opposed to withdrawing from the Paris Agreement.

The Absurdity of Trump's Histrionics

On the other side are right-wing nationalists such as Trump's chief strategist Stephen Bannon, who deny climate change primarily because fighting it requires international cooperation. Powerful Republicans have criticized the climate deal with the most specious of all arguments. The U.S., they say, would be faced with legal consequences were it to miss or lower its climate targets.

Yet international agreement on the Paris accord was only possible because it contains no punitive tools at all. The only thing signatories must do is report every five years how much progress they have made toward achieving their self-identified climate protection measures.

In late March, for example, he signed an executive order to unwind part of Barack Obama's legacy, the Clean Power Plan. Among other measures, the plan called for the closure of aging coal-fired power plants, the reduction of methane emissions produced by oil and natural gas drilling, and stricter rules governing fuel efficiency in new vehicles. Without these measures, Obama's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by up to 28 percent by 2025, in comparison to 2005, will hardly be achievable. But Trump is also planning to head in the opposite direction. To make the U.S. less dependent on energy imports, he wants to return to coal, one of the dirtiest energy sources in existence -- even though energy independence was largely achieved years ago thanks to cheap, less environmentally damaging natural gas.Therein lies the absurdity of Trump's histrionics. Nothing would have been easier for the U.S. than to take part pro forma in United Nations climate-related negotiations while completely ignoring climate protection measures at home -- which Trump has been doing anyway since his election.

German and European efforts will now focus on keeping the other agreement signatories on board, which Berlin has already been working on for several weeks now. Because of the now-visible effects of climate change and the falling prices for renewable energies, German officials believe that the path laid forward by Paris is irreversible.
Berlin officials say that EU member states are eager to move away from fossil fuels, as are China and India. Even emissaries from Russia and Saudi Arabia, countries whose governments aren't generally considered to be enthusiastic promoters of renewable energy sources, have indicated to the Germans that "Paris will be complied with." On Thursday in Berlin, Merkel and Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang demonstratively reaffirmed their support for the Paris Agreement. Keqiang even spoke of "green growth."

China and India are likely to not just meet, but exceed their climate targets. China has been reducing its coal consumption for the last three years and plans for over 100 new coal-fired power plants have been scrapped. India, too, is abstaining from the construction of new coal-fired plants and will likely meet its goal of generating 40 percent of its electricity from non-fossil fuels by 2022, eight years earlier than planned. Both countries invest in solar and wind energy and in both, electricity from renewable sources is often cheaper than coal power.

Isolating the American President

The problem is that all of that still won't be enough to limit global warming to significantly below 2 degrees Celsius, as called for in the Paris deal. Much more commitment, much more decisiveness is necessary, particularly in countries that can afford it. German, for example, is almost certain to fall short of its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40 percent by 2020 relative to 1990.

In Taormina, Chancellor Merkel did all she could to isolate the American president. In the summit's closing declaration, she wanted to specifically mention the conflict between the U.S. and its allies over the climate pact. Normally, such documents tend to remain silent on such differences.

At the G-20 meeting in Hamburg, Merkel plans to stay the course. She hopes that all other countries at the meeting will stand up to the United States. Even if Saudi Arabia ends up supporting its ally Trump, the end result would still be 18:2, which doesn't look much better from the perspective of Washington.

Merkel, in any case, is doing all she can to ramp up the pressure on Trump. "The times in which we could completely rely on others are over to a certain extent," she said in her beer tent speech last Sunday.

It shouldn't be underestimated just how bitter it must have been for her to utter this sentence, and how deep her disappointment. Merkel, who grew up in the Soviet sphere of influence, never had much understanding for the anti-Americanism often found in western Germany. U.S. dependability is partly to thank for Eastern Europe's post-1989 freedom.

Merkel has shown a surprising amount of passion for the trans-Atlantic relationship over the years. She came perilously close to openly supporting the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and enjoyed a personal friendship with George W. Bush, despite the fact that most Germans had little sympathy for the U.S. president. Later, Merkel's response to the NSA's surveillance of her mobile phone was largely stoic and she also didn't react when Trump called her refugee policies "insane."
As such, Merkel's comments last Sunday about her loss of trust in America were eye-opening. It was a completely new tone and Merkel knew that it would generate attention. Indeed, that's what she wanted.

A Clear Message to the U.S.

Her sentence immediately circled the globe and was seen among Trump opponents as proof that the most powerful woman in Europe had lost hope that Trump could be brought to reason.

Prior to speeches to her party, such as the one held last Sunday, she always gets a manuscript from Christian Democratic Union (CDU) headquarters in Berlin, but she herself writes the most decisive passages. The comment about Europe's allies was a clear message to the U.S., but it was also meant for a domestic audience. Her speech marked the launch of her re-election campaign.

Merkel knows that her campaign adversaries from the center-left Social Democrats (SPD) intend to make foreign policy an issue in the election. After all, it has a long history of doing so. Willy Brandt did so well in 1969 and 1972 in part because he called into question the Cold War course that had been charted to that point. Gerhard Schröder managed to win in 2002 in part because of his vociferous rejection of German involvement in the coming Iraq War.
Last Monday, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, a senior SPD member, took advantage of a roundtable discussion on migration in the Foreign Ministry to lay into Trump. The largest challenges we currently face, such as climate change, he said, have been made "even larger by the new U.S. isolationism." Those who don't resist such a political course, Gabriel continued, "make themselves complicit." It was a clear shot at the chancellor.

But her speech last Sunday shielded Merkel from possible accusations of abetting Trump, though she nevertheless wants to keep the dialogue going with Washington. Speaking to conservative lawmakers in Berlin on Tuesday, she said that the trans-Atlantic relationship continues to be of "exceptional importance." Nevertheless, she added, differences should not be swept under the rug.

Merkel realized early on just how difficult it would be to work with the new U.S. president, partly because she watched videos of some of his pre-inauguration appearances. Speaking to CDU leaders in December, she said that Trump was extremely serious about his slogan "America First."

The chancellor's image of Trump has shifted since then, but not for the better. The first contacts with the new government in Washington were sobering. When Christoph Heusgen, her foreign policy adviser, met for the first time with Michael Flynn, who was soon to become Trump's short-lived national security adviser, he was shocked by his American counterpart's lack of knowledge.

Shattered Hopes

But there were still grounds for optimism. Early on, Merkel thought that the new U.S. government's naiveite might mean that Trump could be influenced. She was hoping to play the role of educator, an approach that initially looked like it might be successful. In a telephone conversation in January, Merkel explained to Trump the situation in Ukraine. She had the impression that he had never before seriously considered the issue and she was able to convince him not to lift the sanctions that had been placed on Russia.

The new president has likewise thus far refrained from moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He has also left the Iran deal alone and revised initial statements in which he had said that NATO was "obsolete." In the Chancellery, there was hope that Trump could in fact become something like a second-coming of Ronald Reagan.

Those hopes have now been shattered. Because Trump has had difficulty fulfilling many of his campaign promises, he has become even more intransigent. Merkel watched in annoyance as Trump did all he could in Saudi Arabia to avoid upsetting his hosts only to come to the NATO summit and cast public aspersions at his allies. The bad thing about Trump is not that he criticizes partners, says a confidante of Angela Merkel's, but that in contrast to his predecessors, he calls the entire international order into question.

At one point, Merkel took Trump aside in Sicily to speak with him privately about climate protection and the president told her that he would prefer to delay his decision on the Paris Agreement until after the G-20 in July. 

You can postpone everything, Merkel replied, but it's not helpful. She urged that he make a decision prior to the Hamburg summit.

He has now done so.

To the degree that one can make such a claim, Trump has a rather functional view of Merkel. He wants her to increase defense spending and to reduce Germany's trade surplus with the U.S., even if it is a political impossibility. And he wants Merkel to force other European leaders to do the same, even though Merkel doesn't possess the power to do so.

In Trump's world, there are no allies and no mature relationships, just self-interested countries with short-term interests. History means nothing to Trump; as a hard-nosed real-estate magnate, he is only interested in immediate gains. He cares little for long-term relationships.

Two close advisers to the president contributed a piece to the Wall Street Journal this week that can be seen as something like a "Trump Doctrine." "The world is not a 'global community,'" wrote Gary Cohn and Herbert Raymond McMaster, Trump's economic and security advisers. The subtext is clear: The global order, which the United States helped build, belongs to the past. There are no alliances anymore, just individual interests -- no allies, just competitors. It was a clear signal to America's erstwhile Western allies that they can no longer rely on the United States as a partner.

Putin's Dream Come True

It's not surprising that Moscow is gleefully scoffing at the losers in Europe. Mariya Sakharova, the Foreign Ministry's brash spokeswoman, gloated openly Tuesday on Vladimir Solovyov's popular Russian talk show.

If Europe is going to have to take its fate into its own hands, as Merkel says, that just shows how different things used to be when the Continent simply followed the marching orders given by Washington, she said. "We always thought that the Europeans had united in the European Union -- but they were really just standing at attention," she sneered to the approving giggles of her host.

The open government gloating is indicative of the mood currently prevailing in the Russian capital. For Vladimir Putin, a dream appears to have come true in recent days; Trump could prove to be a godsend. For some time, Moscow has been trying to drive a wedge between the trans-Atlantic alliance. But now it looks as though the American president is doing that job for him.

In the past, the Americans guaranteed Europe's security with their nuclear and conventional capabilities. Russia would stand to profit the most from a loosening or possible breakup of the trans-Atlantic relationship. If that were to happen, Putin will have been successful in his strategy of undermining the cohesion of liberal Western democracies.

The fact that the process of disintegration would go so fast has surprised even the Russians. "The trans-Atlantic frictions had been obvious for months. But I didn't expect Merkel to say that Europe needs to free itself from its dependency on the United States," says Konstantin Kosachev, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Federal Council, the upper chamber of Russia's parliament.

In Brussels, Berlin and many other European capitals, pro-European forces are hoping that Moscow is premature with its celebratory mood. They believe the Trump factor could have the reverse effect and actually serve as a magnet to pull the quarreling Europeans back together.
"We've had enough," says Manfred Weber, the influential German politician who leads the conservative party caucus in the European Parliament. "Despite goodwill, we are at a turning point. We have to seize our own opportunity and show that we are just as prepared to act with our trade policies as we are with defense."

Indeed, the Trump factor appears to be having an aphrodisiac effect on European defense cooperation efforts. What had seemed nearly impossible only a short time ago has now become plausible. France and Germany have long been pushing for closer military cooperation in Europe. The French are interested in doing so to assert their own claim to leadership on the Continent, alongside the Americans. And the Germans are interested in diverting attention from the fact that they have spent years spending too little on their armed forces.

In the past, it had always been the British and the Eastern Europeans who stood in the way of the joint efforts promoted by Germany and France -- for the most part out of fear that an internal European competitor to NATO could result. But Britain's decision to leave the EU also means that it will no longer be able to block such efforts. The Eastern Europeans, meanwhile, who see themselves as being on the front against Russia, have lost faith in Trump's pledges to the alliance.

The government in Berlin isn't the only one taking note of the Estonians' eagerness for progress on defense cooperation once it assumes the rotating six-month presidency of the European Council in July. The country had previously been largely opposed to deeper European defense cooperation.

No one believes that Europe can ensure its future security on its own. Washington's military role is too dominant for that. The U.S. spends two and a half times more on defense each year than all the European NATO member states combined. That's why the unthinkable has always been ignored: That Trump could actually withdraw from NATO. But the climate issue has demonstrated that the unthinkable is not something that Trump shies away from.

Europe's Military Push

The more unpredictable this major ally becomes, the more the Europeans will have to rely on their own military capabilities. A few weeks ago, they agreed in Brussels to create a joint command center that would be responsible in the future for European training missions in Africa and the naval operation Sophia against human-traffickers in the Mediterranean Sea. After lengthy hesitation, even Britain relented and agreed in the end.

Further projects may follow, including a European medical command, joint officer training and a European logistics hub. The French and the Germans also want to create a joint air transport unit. The Dutch have offered to take leadership of a multinational alliance providing air-to-air refueling and transport aircraft.

On Wednesday, the European Commission plans to present a paper playing out a number of scenarios of what stronger military cooperation in the European Union might look like in 2025, if the EU member states move to more closely coordinate their military activities. Under the scenarios, EU member states would more closely coordinate their military planning and they would also conduct joint exercises on a regular basis.

Even though there is an urgent need for it, the most difficult area of cooperation seems to be that of joint arms procurement. "There are 178 different weapon systems in the EU, compared to 30 in the U.S.," says European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. The result is that Europeans achieve only 15 percent of the efficiency enjoyed by the Americans with their defense spending.
The Germans and the French, especially, would like to cooperate more closely in this area and develop drones, tanks and combat helicopters together. But previous experience has been sobering. The negotiations are taking an eternity and no agreement is in sight.

The EU is not setting out to challenge the U.S. on security policy -- it merely wants to become less dependent on the Americans, which is something Washington might support as well.

Trade, on the other hand, could be the subject of major conflicts. German Economics Minister Brigitte Zypries and her senior deputy Matthias Machnig experienced firsthand during a trip to the American capital last week, just how big the chasm is on trade issues. Both politicians, members of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), were shocked after their talks with Republican members of Congress and the president's trade advisers.

"Some of the Americans we met with have a serious misjudgment about the economy," Machnig reports. "They believe that the high trade deficit the U.S. has with other countries is largely the product of bad trade deals." They claim that they are constantly getting defeated in the World Trade Organization's (WTO) courts. "But the Americans use the WTO system just like every other country to address trade disputes. And they are often successful." With Trump, he says, the U.S. is already well on its way to self-isolation.

An Opportunity for Europe?

What Trump might call a disaster, could actually present a major opportunity for Europe. The EU could offer an alternative to trading partners feeling snubbed by the Americans. That's one reason that negotiations have been accelerated for free trade agreements between the EU and Japan and the Mercosur countries of South America. EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström herself even personally attacked Trump during her recent visit to Mexico. "Now is the time to build bridges, not walls," she said.

In addition to trade, the EU also wants to fill the vacuum being left behind by the United States on climate protection. "It is Europe's duty to say: That's not how it works," EU Commission President Juncker said on Wednesday in Berlin. "The Americans can't just leave the climate protection agreement. Mr. Trump believes that because he doesn't get close enough to the dossiers to fully understand them."

Juncker says it will take three to four years for the United States to withdraw from the agreement. "We tried to explain that to Mr. Trump in Taormina in clear German sentences. It seems our attempt failed, but the law is the law and it must be obeyed." He also said that "not everything which is law and not everything in international agreements is fake news."

In addition to defense, trade and climate protection, there's a fourth area where the Trump factor could generate some movement. Emancipation from America can only succeed if a way can be found to prevent the common currency from once again becoming the plaything of international financial investors. The introduction of the euro was intended as the crown achievement of the European peace project, but it instead led to massive discord on the Continent during the crisis.

In response, there are numerous proposals on the table for eliminating the design flaws in the currency union. At the core is the question of balancing out the interests of the Northern and Southern European countries. Members in Northern Europe are pushing for fiscal discipline and business innovation, whereas Southern Europe wants to be able to use government borrowing to spur growth if need be.

On Wednesday, the European Commission presented a reflection paper on the future of the euro. Suddenly, many proposals no longer sounded as unrealistic as they did only a few months ago: that of the creation of a post for an EU finance minister and Eurogroup head and a eurozone treasury.

Macron's Momentum

Much of the recent momentum is attributable to one man: new French President Macron. If he makes good on his pledges and forges ahead with economic reforms in his country, it would make it increasingly difficult for Germany to balk at France's ideas for the eurozone. Merkel has long hinted as much by saying she would be prepared to make the necessary changes to the European treaties. "We can give the whole situation a new dynamic," Merkel said during Macron's recent visit to Berlin.

Whether Europe can succeed in breaking free from the United States will ultimately hinge on Merkel and Macron working together. If Merkel wins the election in September, she will have, together with the new French president, the unique opportunity to give Europe the international credibility that it now lacks, says American historian Anne Applebaum. She says Europe should now develop its own foreign policy, its own security and possibly even its own army. "Shouldn't a European navy blockade the Libyan coast? Shouldn't Europeans be thinking about ending the war in Syria? Shouldn't Europe have a joint strategy to push back against Russian disinformation? All of these things are possible, but only if Europe's political leaders start working on them now."

The idea that the Europeans could no longer primarily rely "on others," that they have to become more active on their own, was Macron's position even before his election. He wants to create greater capacity for the EU to act, and he wants to adapt its institutions to the new challenges. That's one reason he appointed Sylvie Goulard, a longtime member of the European Parliament who speaks perfect German, as his defense minister.

"Whether we loudly proclaim our concerns as Europeans or not, the main thing is making it more capable of acting," says one French diplomat. The French share Merkel's view that Trump's Washington is no longer a reliable partner. Macron's statement before the G-7 that he sees Trump as a "partner" was nothing more than lip service. And French diplomats were appalled by how poorly prepared the Americans were in both Brussels and at the G-7 summit in Taormina.

Still, it's unlikely that Macron, who has so far proven himself to be quite skillful with mind games, will seek an open conflict with Trump. A trans-Atlantic clash isn't in his interests. Macron firmly believes in his own persuasiveness, his charm and his seductiveness. At first, he will try to do everything he can to steer Trump where he wants him to go.

And Angela Merkel may find all the things in Macron that she likely sought in vain in his predecessor. Macron could become a reliable and strong partner for Germany. Indeed, there has never before been a French government with as many members possessing deep knowledge of Germany as this one.

Can Merkel Forge Alliance Against Trump?

Will the German chancellor succeed in forging alliances against Donald Trump on the important disputes? It won't be easy. In terms of climate protection, there is a chance. But it's much less likely on trade and defense. When it comes to burden sharing within NATO, Trump isn't alone in his views. And in terms of Germany's trade surplus, it isn't clear who will face isolation.

Merkel is now convinced that Europe must take its fate into its own hands. At the same time, Germany also can't be totally certain who its allies are. When Trump began attacking the Germans behind closed doors in Brussels, it was Macron and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, above all, who sprung to the chancellor's defense. Participants say it was alarming how many NATO members kissed the ground before Trump -- and not just the usual suspects from Eastern Europe.

Merkel has many fans. She is the star among liberals around the world. The leftist American press had already begun declaring her the new leader of the free world even before Trump's election. In an opinion piece this week, Britain's Guardian heaped praise on Merkel, noting that "her statesmanship, her ease, her ability to broker deals and relationships is ever more impressive." But her glorification in the press will do little to help in her test of strength with the world's most powerful man.

And what about China? The major Asian power is standing in the wings, ready to take over the role of the world's leading nation, which America appears to be abandoning. 

At the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, President Xi Jinping sought to present himself as the most powerful advocate of global free trade. Now China also wants to become the leading nation when it comes to climate protection. But officials in Merkel's Chancellery aren't harboring many illusions when it comes to the new partner.

At moments when nothing else helps, Merkel these days, it is said, takes a look at her appointment calendar -- more specifically at June 17. That Saturday, Merkel plans to fly to Rome, where the pope is hosting a private reception for Protestants. The chancellor wants to present Pope Francis with the goals of her G-20 summit in Hamburg in July, on issues like migration and women's rights, for example. It doesn't require much imagination to believe that the two are on the same page when it comes to Trump.

The differences of opinion between the U.S. president and the head of the Catholic Church are no secret. In contrast to Trump, Pope Francis has called for the protection of God's creation and for the world to battle climate change. "It is inconceivable that the pope did not discuss climate change in his conversation with Trump," says one person close to the Vatican who has intimate knowledge of Francis' thinking. But it doesn't appear to have done anything to help.

By Christian Esch, Konstantin von Hammerstein, Julia Amalia Heyer, Christiane Hoffmann, Horand Knaup, Peter Müller, Ralf Neukirch, René Pfister, Christoph Scheuermann, Christoph Schult, Samiha Shafy and Gerald Traufetter