Next week begins an election process for continental Europe that will define the political contours of the EU well into the next decade: on March 15th the Dutch go to the polls in a general election to determine all seats in their House of Representatives; this election will be followed closely thereafter by the first round of the French presidential election in April; and in September, the Germans will determine the fate of long-serving Chancellor Angela Merkel in the FRG's general election. The Russians are watching carefully and acting strategically in each of these democratic contests.
Forecasts of election results, in these contests in particular, are fraught with uncertainty; Yogi Berra reminded all of us how tough predictions are. For those concerned about the EU's future, two candidates are neuralgia-inducing: Geert Wilders, leader of the far right Party for Freedom in The Netherlands; and Marine Le Pen, the popular and populist head of the National Front (FN) in France. Both have made it clear: should they win and form a government, EU exit begins.
- Despite their anti-EU views, however, election victories by either will not automatically be translated into Dutch and French equivalents of "Brexit." Wilders must form a government if he wins, and the fractured nature of multi-party Dutch politics makes that a very high hurdle, despite Wilders popularity. And Le Pen's pledge to withdraw France from the EU and the Eurocurrency zone must pass the National Assembly, where her FN party currently controls only two seats out of 577.
- Another Paris, Brussels Airport, or Nice attack can of course change this political calculus overnight, particularly given the anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric of both.
Outside of the internal political dynamics in each of these three countries, however, two other factors are at play, perhaps decisively: the role of Russia's intelligence services, and Donald Trump's White House.
- On the Russia game, "information operations" and other so-called "active measures" -- influencing public opinion in target countries and undermining the legitimacy of democratic processes - - are not new. As Fred Kempe of the Atlantic Council observed recently, the Soviets in the mid-80's attempted to undermine President Reagan's reelection campaign; and of course, it is now clear that Moscow measures were "active" in our own presidential campaign in 2016.
- But the new battle area for Moscow is now Europe, especially in the three elections previewed above. The UK has called Russia’s activities “weaponizing disinformation.” In this area of hybrid warfare, Russia is world class; the west has barely begun to respond.
- And on the White House role, presidential strategist Steve Bannon continues to grab the ear and influence the keyboard of Mr. Trump. Bannon's views, on display at the recent CPAC meetings in Washington, incorporate a disturbing "loss of national sovereignty" argument that justifies backing away from international agreements like TPP, NAFTA, and nuclear arms control.
- It undoubtedly also explains the president's anti-EU bias: Brussels, and Germany especially, in Bannon's mind, are exemplars of what "loss of sovereignty" means when supra-national authorities like the EU -- an institution strongly supported by Berlin -- marginalize national decision-making. Hence the president's support for Brexit and the soft encouragement of Euro-skeptics across the continent.
- In the process, our most important ally on the continent, and its Chancellor, Angela Merkel, are being thrown under the bus -- as are institutions that for 70 years have been the foundations for peace in Europe.
Despite this concern, there is an encouraging development: the appointment by the president of Army Lieutenant General HR McMaster to the post of national security advisor. General McMaster, eminently qualified, must still contend with the ideology of Steve Bannon and Bannon's acolytes on the White House staff. The Economist magazine recently speculated on the question many have asked in the wake of the McMaster appointment: whose advice -- Bannon's or McMaster's - - will the president heed? The Economist's answer? it is "unclear; yet the stability of the world may depend on it." Of course, so does the future of the EU.
