Latest news with #WolfgangIschinger
New York Times
12-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
‘Doubt Has Crept In': Three European Diplomats on Trusting America
Serge Schmemann hosted a video conversation with three former European diplomats, Wolfgang Ischinger of Germany, Judith Gough of Britain and Gabrielius Landsbergis of Lithuania, to talk about how the Trump administration has profoundly shaken the U.S.-European foundation of shared ideals, commitment to freedom, economic ties and democratic values. Serge Schmemann: What I'd like to ask you, as three prominent former diplomats, is to reflect on what America meant to you in your work, how you react personally to the administration's approach to the bonds with Europe and what you believe the impact may be on the world. Wolfgang Ischinger: My personal ties to the United States have gone far beyond the professional realm. I've spent a total of more than a dozen years in the country — as a high school student, as a postgraduate student at Harvard Law School, as a young diplomat and then in the early 2000s for almost five years as ambassador. We had issues in those days, especially over the Iraq war. But I felt very confident as a German in the 1990s or 2000s that for the first time in many decades Germany was now on the right side of history, that after the years under the kaiser and then the Nazis, Germany was identifying with the West and invited to be part of the West — especially by the United States. So the German relationship with the United States until now has been something that created tremendous joy and satisfaction for Germans. That is why I think what has happened in the West between the United States and her European allies and others has created more pain, more convulsion, more crisis in the mind of German elites than in the minds of most other European elites. Schmemann: Ms. Gough, can you identify a specific moment or situation in which the United States was critical to your own outlook? Judith Gough: I don't think there's a specific moment, but I think there is a theme that runs through both of my postings, first as British ambassador to Georgia, but then as ambassador to Ukraine, which is that Britain and the United States were very much partners in terms of supporting the progression of democracy in both Georgia and Ukraine, and fighting corruption in Ukraine, supporting reform, the rule of law, human rights. Of course, there were variances of opinions, particularly around, for example, L.G.B.T.-plus rights, where there were nuances and differences. But I think what I felt as an ambassador was very much a sense of a partnership with America. Schmemann: Today, when you follow American handling of peace talks for Ukraine, how do you react? Gough: You know, the vision and the goal is the correct one, which is to bring peace to Ukraine. I think the challenge comes in terms of conducting negotiations. Ukraine has to be at the table, and so do the Europeans. On the one hand, the United States quite rightly wants Europe to take more responsibility for its own defense and its own security. But by that token, Europe has to be at the table and playing a serious role. Schmemann: Mr. Landsbergis, as a Lithuanian you're a citizen of a country directly threatened by a hostile Russia, and as foreign minister you've been a direct participant in the shaping of a post-Soviet universe. Can you describe a concrete instance when the United States shaped your perceptions or actions? Gabrielius Landsbergis: There's one particular point in history which I think is quite important to my country. This was just before Lithuania joined NATO, when President George W. Bush came. It was the first time a U.S. president visited my country. He gave a very memorable speech in which, at least as far as we know, he went off script because he was feeling really warmhearted by the amount of people that had gathered there in the main square of Vilnius, all of them wavering U.S. flags and chanting 'U.S.A.! ' And he said something like whoever would choose Lithuania as their enemy would choose United States as their enemy as well. Apparently these words were unscripted. Yet they are now on a plaque on the town hall of Vilnius. A kid in school could probably quote these words. So this is how deeply our fate and our security are bound to our ally across the Atlantic. So you can imagine what not just me, but the whole country, is experiencing right now. It's like something in your body being torn, because we grew up with this, we lived with this, we believed in this. Schmemann: Maybe we could follow that up, if I could ask all of you to describe ways in which the United States of an earlier time embodied values that you and your people regarded as critical, that benefited the world? Gough: I think the values that the United States stood for were extremely clear. I can remember when the Soviet Union dissolved: It was one of the reasons I decided to study Russian and embark upon the career that I did. You could see a new world opening up, you could see a new direction and the values that prevailed, and they were very much values that were put forward by the United States. The challenge now is trying to understand what values the United States stands for: What are the values that American diplomats go forth and defend and uphold? Schmemann: Wolfgang, would you agree? Half of your nation was part of the East. Were there similar sentiments toward the United States, or were they different? Ischinger: I remember very well when President George W. Bush visited Berlin in 2002, and before he arrived there were the usual anti-American demonstrations in parts of Berlin. I remember a Berlin taxi driver who said to me, if you see President Bush, please tell him this: We Berliners know that these demonstrators owe the fact that they can demonstrate for and against whatever they please to the fact that our city was protected and kept free by the United States for the last 60 years. I'm proud to say I actually managed to transmit that message to President Bush, who loved it and told the story to some American television reporter. We're having this conversation almost exactly 30 years since my friend, the late Richard Holbrooke, published an important piece in Foreign Affairs titled 'America, a European Power.' There was no question mark at the end of the title. I think it's very important to read that piece today because most of it rings totally true. It is in America's interest to make sure that Europe remains at peace and stable. It seems to me that we are now at a crossroads as far as the development of Europe is concerned. For many decades, the idea was that Europe was going to be protected and supported by the United States. I think we are now facing a very different situation, where America is now suggesting to us that maybe you guys should take your security into your own hands. That is something totally revolutionary, if the United States is no longer willing to serve as the big protector which takes care of European security now and essentially forever. It requires the European project, which was focused for many decades only on economic and social integration, to add a totally new dimension — a Europe which can protect itself by itself. Schmemann: There have been differences, of course, but Wolfgang speaks of a 'revolution.' Differences between Republican and Democratic administrations is one thing, but are we now in something totally new? Gough: We are at something new in terms of how the United States is conducting its business. But I don't think I'm massively surprised. We have a U.S. administration that signaled quite clearly what its intentions were. Whether people chose to listen to that and understand is a different matter. I think it is incumbent upon Europe to think proactively: What are we going to do? How are we going to engage? Hand-wringing will get us nowhere. Schmemann: How about you, Gabrielius? Did you ever imagine an America such as we have today? Landsbergis: Well, we'd seen Donald Trump in the first administration. We talked about it. We had all the time to prepare. But we didn't do that. So it's very difficult for us to admit that this is happening. And nobody could have prepared for somebody who would shatter the fundamentals, the foundations of trans-Atlantic relations. What sort of U.S. involvement we will be seeing in Europe? No more troops? No more NATO? No more Article 5? No more nuclear umbrella? I mean, how far does it go? Schmemann: What about you, Wolfgang? Ischinger: Let me first respond to what Gabrielius just said. There is a growing concern all over Europe about future U.S. intentions regarding NATO. But it's important to note that as we speak, no U.S. troops have been withdrawn from Europe. There are still many tens of thousands of American soldiers all over the European continent. Not one nuclear weapon based in Europe has been withdrawn. In other words, NATO still exists. There may be changes coming. We are worried about that; but they have not started. What has started, however, is that doubt has crept in, a loss of mutual trust. Loss of trust in diplomacy or in international relations is very similar to a loss of trust in a relationship between persons: It's very easy to lose, but rebuilding trust is very complicated. Schmemann: Do you think that Europe will finally take a closer and more serious look at its own security? Gough: Diplomats are hard-wired to see a silver lining in any situation and to look for the positive and look long term. Look at how quickly Europe actually moved on Ukraine, largely led by Britain and France, but with vital input from everybody. It's very hard to look at the defense of Europe at the moment without U.S. engagement and without U.S. hardware. But I think you will see that when the chips are down, Europe will do that. Schmemann: Gabrielius, do you see any silver lining in this retreat of the United States? Landsbergis: Yes and no. On one hand I see positive signs when it comes to specific countries pulling a lot more weight than they probably figured that they would ever need to. I would stress the importance of the announcements that are coming from the German government. I mean, Germany alone is investing billions of euros into defense. That's an enormous decision for Germany, for Europe, for my country. It's a signal to Putin. That is huge. What I'm worried about is this: When we talk about the European Union, when we talk about the institutions, I would like to see more belief in ourselves. We are a continent of 450 million people. We have an enormous economy that, if it wants to, can achieve things. It can reinvent itself and it can actually defend itself. But I'm worried that we lack the belief that this is the European hour, our make-it-or- break it moment. We have to transform ourselves into a continent that actually believes in itself and is able to defend itself. So the shock is healthy, unless it kills the patient. Schmemann: Wolfgang, do you think this is a moment when Europe might pull together? Ischinger: In the long run, yes, but this is not what the original European Community was built for. The idea was integrating, not defending against the outside. We are going to be facing a totally new challenge to make of this European Union something that can play this role. In the long term, there's no reason not to be optimistic. But it'll take time. Building up a Europe that can protect itself, even if we spend a lot of money, will take years. This is why I am quite skeptical and worried. I hope the United States is not going to abandon us at this very critical juncture. Schmemann: What scenarios do you fear most immediately? Ischinger: It's worth noting that China has so far not officially recognized Crimea to be part of Russia, nor has China recognized the four oblasts in Donbas that Russia claims to be part of Russia. It's very important from a legal point of view that the United States also remind itself of how it once refused to recognize Soviet occupation of the Baltic countries. It's crucially important that even if certain compromises may be required to obtain a peaceful settlement of the Ukraine war, there should be no legal recognition of territorial occupation. If we neglect these principles, we would really be in trouble in Europe. Schmemann: Judith, do you have any nightmare scenarios in all this? Gough: They're not dissimilar to Wolfgang's. As somebody who served in Ukraine, my nightmare scenario is that a short-term peace deal is favored over a long-term perspective that will hold. We have to be really clear that Russia is actually not interested in a bit of Ukraine. It is interested in ensuring that Ukraine is not a sovereign nation able to make its own choices and decide its own destiny, which includes drawing closer to Europe. There's a very old saying that's attributed to Lenin — and I have no idea whether he said it or not — which is that if you have a bayonet and you push against something soft, you keep on pushing, but if you hit something hard, you stop. What really needs to be in place is some really hard resolve that says to Russia, stop. If we accept that borders can be changed by force and aggression in Ukraine, then where else can that happen? Schmemann: And you, Gabrielius, what keeps you awake at night? Landsbergis: Well, my scenarios are close to home, so to say. My biggest worry is that the signaling of the last couple of months to the Russians might change their calculations as to how and when to test other countries in NATO and the E.U. As Wolfgang mentioned, in the short term, Europe might not be ready. If we know this, so does Putin. And if he is given a respite in Ukraine, he might decide that maybe this is a time he could test whether NATO is still alive. This is the stuff of nightmares for any European country. Schmemann: If the United States has indeed abdicated its role as the beacon of freedom, what is the alternative? What can or should Europe do? Landsbergis: First of all, leave the door open. I think that there are enough people in the United States who hold the same values we do, who want to be part of building the world in that idealistic image. I'm convinced there will be a turnaround. But we cannot just wait. Until we are back in this reinforced, reinvigorated, trans-Atlantic arrangement, there are countries and people out there looking for a beacon of freedom, for somebody to light it up. If the United States cannot do it, well, Europe has to do it. Schmemann: Judith? Gough: The key thing for us in Europe to remember is that we haven't changed. Neither have our interests. We need to be confident and we need to keep engaging and need to keep talking with the United States. You are still our closest partner. We need to keep sticking up for our values and articulating our values and articulating our interests. Schmemann: Wolfgang? Ischinger: We should not despair about what some of us may see as unfortunate developments across the Atlantic. There are so many governors and senators and intellectuals and academics who are totally aware of how important American soft power has been and continues to be; how important the partnership and alliance and other links with Europe are for the United States. We need to remind our American friends that we're in this together. So engage, engage, engage, that would be my final word. Schmemann: In fact, that is exactly what we have tried to facilitate today. The chance to engage, to keep talking. So I want to thank the three of you very sincerely.
Straits Times
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Straits Times
After critical remarks in Munich, US V-P Vance adopts more conciliatory tone towards Europe
US Vice-President J.D. Vance (right) taking part in a discussion moderated by Mr Wolfgang Ischinger, former chairman of the Munich Security Conference, in Washington on May 7. PHOTO: REUTERS After critical remarks in Munich, US V-P Vance adopts more conciliatory tone towards Europe WASHINGTON - US Vice-President J.D. Vance on May 7 said Europe and the United States were "on the same team" but needed a better joint security posture, taking a more conciliatory tone after alarming allies with sharp remarks during a visit to Germany in February. During an event in Washington sponsored by the Munich Security Conference, Mr Vance reiterated his and President Donald Trump's belief that Europe needed to take on more responsibility related to defence. Mr Vance said both sides of the Atlantic had become too comfortable with an outdated security system that was not adequate to meet the challenges of the next 20 years. The vice-president has played an attack dog role repeatedly for Mr Trump on foreign policy but stepped back from that approach in his remarks at the conference on May 7. "I do still very much think that the United States and Europe are on the same team," he said, noting how European and American culture and civilizations were linked. "It's completely ridiculous to think that you're ever going to be able to drive a firm wedge between the United States and Europe. Now that doesn't mean we're not going to have disagreements." Earlier this year in Munich, Mr Vance accused European leaders of censoring free speech and failing to control immigration, drawing a rebuke from German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius that the US vice-president was calling into question democracy in Germany and in Europe as a whole. Mr Vance last week joined other members of Mr Trump's circle, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in criticising a move by Germany's domestic intelligence agency to classify the far-right Alternative for Germany party as an "extremist" group, enabling it to step up monitoring of the biggest opposition party. But on May 7, Mr Vance adopted a less antagonistic tone towards Washington's long-time ally and Nato partners. He said his February remarks were aimed as much at the administration of former president Joe Biden as they were at European partners. Mr Wolfgang Ischinger, the former chairman of the Munich Security Conference who now serves as president of the MSC Foundation Council, invited Mr Vance to return to Germany for the group's main conference again in 2026. 'I wasn't sure after February whether I would get the invitation back, but it's good to know it's still there,' Mr Vance joked. "Well, we thought about it," Mr Ischinger quipped back, to laughter. The audience, which included diplomats and national security experts, applauded when Mr Vance got up to leave. They had not done so when he came on stage. Mr Vance addressed a handful of foreign policy topics during his question and answer session with Mr Ischinger, a former ambassador. More than 100 days into Mr Trump's administration, Mr Vance said he was not pessimistic about the chances of ending Russia's war with Ukraine. He has previously threatened that the US would walk away from negotiations if the two sides did not show progress. He said Washington would not be able to mediate an end to the war without direct talks between the two sides and urged Russia and Ukraine to agree on some guidelines to make that happen. "Right now, the Russians are asking for a certain set of requirements, a certain set of concessions in order to end the conflict. We think they're asking for too much," said Mr Vance, who has previously taken a hard line on Ukraine. Mr Vance urged the European Union to lower its tariffs and regulatory barriers, a major grievance for Mr Trump that has fuelled his determination to install reciprocal tariffs. He also spoke positively about US talks with Iran over its nuclear programme, saying there was a deal to be made that would reintegrate Iran into the global economy while preventing it from getting a nuclear weapon. "So far, so good," he said. "We've been very happy by how the Iranians have responded to some of the points that we've made." During his first term, Mr Trump withdrew the US from a 2015 nuclear deal with Iran that had been negotiated by European and other world powers. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘It's not Europe bad, America good': JD Vance returns to Munich meeting
It was part of JD Vance's first international trip as United States vice president: The former senator from Ohio was taking a tour of Europe, representing the second administration of President Donald Trump on the world stage. A major point on his itinerary was a speech he would give to the 61st annual Munich Security Conference on February 14, in front of leaders representing some of the US's closest allies. But rather than celebrate those historic ties, Vance took a more aggressive approach. Perched at the podium in Munich, he shocked onlookers by criticising Europe, warning against laws and restrictions he said could 'destroy democracy'. It has been nearly three months since Vance delivered that speech, and on Wednesday, the vice president returned to the Munich forum, this time for its leaders' meeting in Washington, DC. In a question-and-answer segment with German diplomat Wolfgang Ischinger, Vance revisited his February speech, which sparked backlash within Europe and at home. He also gave a preview of US negotiations over Iran's nuclear programme and Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Here are three key takeaways from his remarks. Wolfgang Ischinger, chair of the Munich Security Conference, moderated the discussion with Vance [Kevin Lamarque/Reuters] Mending fences with Europe Wednesday's public appearance marked the third time Vance spoke to an event hosted by the Munich Security Conference. But his last speech — with its accusations of democratic backsliding — loomed heavily over the proceedings. Vance tried to reframe his remarks on Wednesday as respectful criticism between allies, emphasising the warm relations the US and Europe have traditionally shared. ' I think — I mean this from the heart and as a friend — that there is a trade-off between policing the bounds of democratic speech and debate and losing the trust of our people. And we're all going to draw the lines a little bit differently,' Vance said. 'I'm fine if one country is going to draw those lines a little bit differently than the United States.' He added that questions of free speech and democratic principles are issues the US is grappling with, too. 'I think all of us, including especially the United States, we have to be careful that we don't draw the lines in such a way that we actually undermine the very democratic legitimacy upon which all of our civilization rests,' the vice president explained. ' I think that is fundamentally the point here. It's not Europe bad, America good.' Ultimately, he said, Europe and the US are 'on the same civilizational team', and he underscored his belief that no wedge could come between them, even if the two parties exchanged criticism. Vance took a softer tone than during his last appearance at February's Munich Security Conference, which sparked criticism [Kevin Lamarque/Reuters] Walking a fine line with Iran Vance also struck an upbeat tone in his assessment of the US's efforts to scale back Iran's nuclear programme, saying the two countries are on 'the right pathway'. ' Without prejudging the negotiations, I will say: So far, so good. We've been very happy by how the Iranians have responded to some of the points that we've made,' Vance said. Vance's optimism offered a counterpoint to concerns that the negotiations could be derailed by continuing tensions between the US and Iran. Last week, a fourth round of talks expected in Rome were postponed for 'logistical reasons', though experts pointed out that the delay coincided with a fresh slate of US sanctions against Iran's petroleum industry. Those talks are slated to resume this weekend in Oman's capital Muscat. On Wednesday, Vance stressed the US position that Washington will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, though he expressed ambivalence about nuclear energy for civilian purposes. 'We don't care if people want nuclear power. We're fine with that. But you can't have the kind of enrichment programme that allows you to get to a nuclear weapon. And that's where we draw the line,' Vance said. Still, the question of nuclear enrichment — even for civilian purposes — has been a point of contention in recent weeks. Certain US officials have signalled they would like to see Iran eliminate its enrichment programme altogether. For his part, Vance questioned whether it was likely Iran would use uranium enrichment solely for nuclear power, not weaponry. 'Let me ask this basic question: Which regime in the world has civil nuclear power and enrichment without having a nuclear weapon?' Vance asked. 'The answer is no one.' Iran has long denied any ambition of seeking a nuclear weapon, and it has signalled it is willing to scale back its enrichment programme. Previously, it had signed onto a 2015 deal, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), that imposed limits to its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. During his first term, however, Trump withdrew the US from the agreement, causing the pact to fall apart. The US president has since sought to rekindle nuclear negotiations with Iran during his second term. 'We really think that, if the Iran domino falls, you're gonna see nuclear proliferation all over the Middle East,' Vance said. Vance spoke to the ongoing negotiations with Iran, Russia and Ukraine [Kevin Lamarque/Reuters] Not 'pessimistic' about peace in Ukraine The vice president also shared his insight into another area of tense international negotiation: the war between Russia and Ukraine. Since February 2022, Russia has led a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, after capturing regions including Crimea in 2014. In his campaign for re-election last year, Trump pledged to end the slow-grinding war, which has cost thousands of lives. He even claimed he would stop the war on his first day back in office, though he has since backtracked, telling Time Magazine he meant those remarks 'figuratively'. But Trump has nevertheless sought to act as a mediator between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. His administration, however, has been criticised for negotiating with Russia in isolation and seeming to acquiesce to Putin's demands. Trump, for instance, has echoed Russian talking points blaming Ukraine for the war and saying that Zelenskyy can 'forget about' membership in the NATO military alliance. His officials have also suggested Ukraine was 'unlikely' to regain the territory it had lost to Russia's invasion. Vance took a slightly tougher stance against Russia on Wednesday, underscoring that he and the Trump administration did not see eye to eye with Putin. ' You don't have to agree with the Russian justification for the war, and certainly both the president and I have criticised the full-scale invasion,' Vance said. 'But you have to try to understand where the other side is coming from to end the conflict.' The vice president sought to justify Trump's approach as an effort to bring both sides to the negotiating table, in the spirit of what he called 'strategic realism'. 'Our view is: It's absurd that you've had this war go on for so long. And the two sides aren't even talking constructively about what would be necessary for them to end the conflict,' Vance explained. ' A frustration that we've had frankly with both sides is that they hate each other so much — that, if you have an hour conversation with either side, the first 30 minutes is just them complaining about some historical grievance from four years ago or five years ago or 10 years ago.' Vance laid out his position that Russia is 'asking for too much' in terms of concessions from Ukraine. But he also criticised Ukraine for sticking to a 30-day ceasefire proposal that initially emerged from talks with the US in Saudi Arabia. ' What the Russians have said is a 30-day ceasefire is not in our strategic interest,' Vance said. 'So we've tried to move beyond the obsession with the 30-day ceasefire and more on: What would the long-term settlement look like?' He added that he was 'not yet that pessimistic' on the prospect of a negotiated peace, despite rumblings from the White House that Trump may withdraw from the negotiations altogether.
The Independent
07-05-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
JD Vance denies ‘wedge' has been driven between US and Europe – despite his repeated jabs at America's traditional allies
JD Vance denied that a rift had been driven between the United States and Europe despite the vice president's own repeated broadsides against America's traditional ally. The vice president spoke in a moderated discussion with Wolfgang Ischinger, the head of the Munich Security Conference, on Wednesday in Washington, D.C., three months after he made waves at the organization's conference in Germany. 'I think it's completely ridiculous to think that you're ever going to be able to drive a firm wedge between the United States and Europe,' Vance said. 'It doesn't mean that Europeans won't criticize the United States, the United States won't criticize Europe, but I do think fundamentally we have to be and we are on the same civilizational team.' The discussion came at a crucial moment for President Donald Trump, as the United States seeks to broker an end to Russia's war in Ukraine. So far, the United States has threatened to walk away from peace talks, while Trump has harshly criticized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. 'What I would say is, right now, the Russians are asking for a certain set of requirements, a certain set of concessions in order to end the conflict, we think they're asking for too much,' he said. Ischinger mentioned Vance's speech he made back in February in Munich, where he harshly criticized European immigration policy and accused Europe of 'retreating from some of its most fundamental values,' questioning its commitment to free speech and its election integrity. Vance further aggravated Europeans when in a Fox News interview, he criticized the idea of a peacekeeping force in Ukraine. He said the best path forward to peace was to give the United States an economic upside in Ukraine, calling it 'way better security guarantee than 20,000 troops from some random country that hasn't fought a war in 20 or 30 years.' His comments were widely interpreted as referencing Britain and France. Troops from both countries served alongside the U.S. in Afghanistan, and British forces also took part in the war in Iraq. France lost 86 troops in Afghanistan, while Britain lost 454 in Afghanistan and 179 in Iraq. Amid uproar in Europe – which saw British tabloids label him a 'clown' and 'JD Dunce' – Vance said it was 'absurdly dishonest' to say he meant to insult the United Kingdom and France. During his speech on Wednesday, the vice president stressed the need for the US-European alliance. 'I still think that this European Alliance is very important, but I think that for it to be important and for us to be real friends with each other, and I think that we are very much real friends, we've got to talk about the big question,' he said. "I think that it means that all of us, frankly, on both sides of the Atlantic, have gotten a little bit too comfortable with the security posture of the last 20 years, and that, frankly, that security posture is not adequate to meet the challenges of the next 20 years.' He also repeated Trump's calls for European countries to contribute more to their own defense. 'It's not just spending money, as important as that is. It's making sure that the same economic engine that powered first world living standards is actually geared towards producing, God forbid, weapons of war, if those weapons of war are ever necessary,' he said. 'I think this is an area where we're fundamentally right, and I think it's gratifying to see so many of our European friends recognize that and recognize that Europe does really have to play a bigger role in continental defense.' He defended Trump's decision to levy across-the-board tariffs against Europe. 'In the same way that American markets have been open to a lot of European goods, we'd like a lot of European markets to be open to American goods,' he said. Vance said that Trump only enacted his 'liberation day' tariffs that disrupted global markets 30 days ago. 'So we are in the early innings of a very significant shift,' he said. 'I think that shift is going to really endure to the benefit of both the United States, but also of Europe, but fundamentally it has to happen.' Vance has served as something of Trump's attack dog on the global stage, being one of the president's point people on trade deals with Europe and the United Kingdom. At the same time, he also clashed with Prime Minister Keir Starmer about Europe's free speech laws.
Al Jazeera
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
‘It's not Europe bad, America good': JD Vance returns to Munich meeting
In his third appearance with the Munich Security Conference, the US vice president sought to strike a conciliatory tone. It was part of JD Vance's first international trip as United States vice president: The former senator from Ohio was taking a tour of Europe, representing the second administration of President Donald Trump on the world stage. A major point on his itinerary was a speech he would give to the 61st annual Munich Security Conference on February 14, in front of leaders representing some of the US's closest allies. But rather than celebrate those historic ties, Vance took a more aggressive approach. Perched at the podium in Munich, he shocked onlookers by criticising Europe, warning against laws and restrictions he said could 'destroy democracy'. It has been nearly three months since Vance delivered that speech, and on Wednesday, the vice president returned to the Munich forum, this time for its leaders' meeting in Washington, DC. In a question-and-answer segment with German diplomat Wolfgang Ischinger, Vance revisited his February speech, which sparked backlash within Europe and at home. He also gave a preview of US negotiations over Iran's nuclear programme and Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Advertisement Here are three key takeaways from his remarks. Mending fences with Europe Wednesday's public appearance marked the third time Vance spoke to an event hosted by the Munich Security Conference. But his last speech — with its accusations of democratic backsliding — loomed heavily over the proceedings. Vance tried to reframe his remarks on Wednesday as respectful criticism between allies, emphasising the warm relations the US and Europe have traditionally shared. ' I think — I mean this from the heart and as a friend — that there is a trade-off between policing the bounds of democratic speech and debate and losing the trust of our people. And we're all going to draw the lines a little bit differently,' Vance said. 'I'm fine if one country is going to draw those lines a little bit differently than the United States.' He added that questions of free speech and democratic principles are issues the US is grappling with, too. Sign up for Al Jazeera Americas Coverage Newsletter US politics, Canada's multiculturalism, South America's geopolitical rise—we bring you the stories that matter. Subscribe Your subscription failed. Please try again. Please check your email to confirm your subscription By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy protected by reCAPTCHA 'I think all of us, including especially the United States, we have to be careful that we don't draw the lines in such a way that we actually undermine the very democratic legitimacy upon which all of our civilization rests,' the vice president explained. ' I think that is fundamentally the point here. It's not Europe bad, America good.' Ultimately, he said, Europe and the US are 'on the same civilizational team', and he underscored his belief that no wedge could come between them, even if the two parties exchanged criticism. Walking a fine line with Iran Vance also struck an upbeat tone in his assessment of the US's efforts to scale back Iran's nuclear programme, saying the two countries are on 'the right pathway'. Advertisement ' Without prejudging the negotiations, I will say: So far, so good. We've been very happy by how the Iranians have responded to some of the points that we've made,' Vance said. Vance's optimism offered a counterpoint to concerns that the negotiations could be derailed by continuing tensions between the US and Iran. Last week, a fourth round of talks expected in Rome were postponed for 'logistical reasons', though experts pointed out that the delay coincided with a fresh slate of US sanctions against Iran's petroleum industry. Those talks are slated to resume this weekend in Oman's capital Muscat. On Wednesday, Vance stressed the US position that Washington will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, though he expressed ambivalence about nuclear energy for civilian purposes. 'We don't care if people want nuclear power. We're fine with that. But you can't have the kind of enrichment programme that allows you to get to a nuclear weapon. And that's where we draw the line,' Vance said. Still, the question of nuclear enrichment — even for civilian purposes — has been a point of contention in recent weeks. Certain US officials have signalled they would like to see Iran eliminate its enrichment programme altogether. For his part, Vance questioned whether it was likely Iran would use uranium enrichment solely for nuclear power, not weaponry. 'Let me ask this basic question: Which regime in the world has civil nuclear power and enrichment without having a nuclear weapon?' Vance asked. 'The answer is no one.' Advertisement Iran has long denied any ambition of seeking a nuclear weapon, and it has signalled it is willing to scale back its enrichment programme. Previously, it had signed onto a 2015 deal, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), that imposed limits to its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. During his first term, however, Trump withdrew the US from the agreement, causing the pact to fall apart. The US president has since sought to rekindle nuclear negotiations with Iran during his second term. 'We really think that, if the Iran domino falls, you're gonna see nuclear proliferation all over the Middle East,' Vance said. Not 'pessimistic' about peace in Ukraine The vice president also shared his insight into another area of tense international negotiation: the war between Russia and Ukraine. Since February 2022, Russia has led a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, after capturing regions including Crimea in 2014. In his campaign for re-election last year, Trump pledged to end the slow-grinding war, which has cost thousands of lives. He even claimed he would stop the war on his first day back in office, though he has since backtracked, telling Time Magazine he meant those remarks 'figuratively'. But Trump has nevertheless sought to act as a mediator between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. His administration, however, has been criticised for negotiating with Russia in isolation and seeming to acquiesce to Putin's demands. Advertisement Trump, for instance, has echoed Russian talking points blaming Ukraine for the war and saying that Zelenskyy can 'forget about' membership in the NATO military alliance. His officials have also suggested Ukraine was 'unlikely' to regain the territory it had lost to Russia's invasion. Vance took a slightly tougher stance against Russia on Wednesday, underscoring that he and the Trump administration did not see eye to eye with Putin. ' You don't have to agree with the Russian justification for the war, and certainly both the president and I have criticised the full-scale invasion,' Vance said. 'But you have to try to understand where the other side is coming from to end the conflict.' The vice president sought to justify Trump's approach as an effort to bring both sides to the negotiating table, in the spirit of what he called 'strategic realism'. 'Our view is: It's absurd that you've had this war go on for so long. And the two sides aren't even talking constructively about what would be necessary for them to end the conflict,' Vance explained. ' A frustration that we've had frankly with both sides is that they hate each other so much — that, if you have an hour conversation with either side, the first 30 minutes is just them complaining about some historical grievance from four years ago or five years ago or 10 years ago.' Vance laid out his position that Russia is 'asking for too much' in terms of concessions from Ukraine. But he also criticised Ukraine for sticking to a 30-day ceasefire proposal that initially emerged from talks with the US in Saudi Arabia. Advertisement ' What the Russians have said is a 30-day ceasefire is not in our strategic interest,' Vance said. 'So we've tried to move beyond the obsession with the 30-day ceasefire and more on: What would the long-term settlement look like?' He added that he was 'not yet that pessimistic' on the prospect of a negotiated peace, despite rumblings from the White House that Trump may withdraw from the negotiations altogether.
