EU - Military - Foreign Policy: German Chancellor Angela Merkel calls for greater military cooperation in EU countries ahead of EU parliamentary elections in May - by Alex Daniel

Up Yours Donald !

Angela Merkel has said the European Union should cooperate more in developing weapons systems in a bid to push back against a growing wave of euroscepticism before the European parliamentary elections in May.

In a speech to her Christian Democrats party (CDU) she said: “It is good that after several decades we want to develop a common defence policy ... We must develop weapons systems together.”

“We have very strict export rules, others have less strict rules ... But anyone who develops an airplane with us would also like to know whether they can sell the plane with us,” she said.

Merkel has repeatedly stressed the importance of Germany’s partnership with France, saying on her weekly podcast this week the friendship was “far from a given after centuries of military conflict between our countries”.

“We want to give an impulse to European unity,” Merkel said.

In November the German Chancellor went as far as to call for the creation of a European Army, stressing that such an effort would not mean an end to the US-led Nato.

Note EU Digest: Given the present political climate in the US, the EU can not forever rely on the NATO being there, and must get off Grandpa's knee to take some more independent decissions of their own, as it relates to their defence and foreign policies.

EU-Digest

EU-US Relations: The new Trump Isolationist Doctrine and Strategy requires a reevaluation of the EU foreign policy objectives

A wall around America, instead 
of one between Mexico and US

President Donald Trump declared a new national security strategy on Monday,December 18, stressing the "America first" message of his 2016 campaign and faulting previous U.S. leaders for failing to measure up to it and look out for the nation's citizens. Isolation

"Our leaders engaged in nation building abroad while they failed to build up and replenish our nation at home," he said, pointing to the economy's strong performance and predicting even better under his policies.

His security strategy envisions nations in constant competition, reverses Obama-era warnings on climate change and affirms that the United States will unilaterally defend its sovereignty, even if that means risking existing the agreements with other countries that have dominated the United States' foreign policy since the Cold War.

The strategy from the Republican president could sharply alter U.S. international relationships if fully implemented. It focuses on four main themes: protecting the homeland, promoting American prosperity, demonstrating peace through strength and advancing American influence in an ever-competitive world.

Trump's doctrine holds that nation-states are in perpetual competition and that the U.S. must fight on all fronts to protect and defend its sovereignty from friend and foe alike. While the administration often says that "America First" does not mean "America Alone," the national security strategy makes clear that the United States will stand up for itself even if that means acting unilaterally or alienating others on issues such as trade, climate change and immigration.

Despite the risk of potential isolation presented by Trump's strategy, its fundamentals are not a surprise. The strategy emphasizes that U.S. economic security is national security. And it stresses that the U.S. is interested only in relationships with other countries, including in alliances such as NATO, that are fair and reciprocal.

The strategy also details the threats of "rogue regimes," like North Korea. It says that China and Russia "challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity."

Despite international challenges, the document cites emerging opportunities to advance American interests in the Middle East. "Some of our partners are working together to reject radical ideologies and key leaders are calling for a rejection of Islamist extremism and violence," it says. "Encouraging political stability and sustainable prosperity would contribute to dampening the conditions that fuel sectarian grievances."

Note EU-Digest: Obviously the President of the USA can and must do what in his eyes he believes is good for America. As to the EU, what is good for America, necessarily does not have to be good for the EU. Consequently, as has been written many times, the EU must stop being the "lapdog" of America, given its importance as a world class economy, with a population of close to half a billion people, and establish its own independent foreign policy based on EU principles and  priorities, and include a review of its military objectives within this context.

As to the leaders of European Populists and Nationalist parties, like Geert Wilders, Jean Marie Lr Pen, Nigel Farage, and others, who apparently admire Trump's "America First Isolationist Doctrine",  we  recommend they pack their bags and request asylum in the US  from their idol Danald Trump.   

Read more: Trump unveils details of 'America First' security strategy

Europeans think they know America – but the gun control debate shows how little we do - OpEd by Suzanne Moore

The need for using guns is spoon fed into most American kids 

When I first went to my friend Sherry’s house for dinner, I couldn’t help noticing tiny holes all over the white kitchen cupboards. She was a new friend, my only friend, actually, as I had just moved to Miami.

Her mother came in and saw me looking and said: “That’s where Shane shot himself up.” Shane was Sherry’s cousin. Her mother was mostly annoyed that he had used Sherry’s dad’s gun. Whether this was an accident or a suicide I was too polite to ask. He was 16.

When Sherry’s dad sat down at the table, he showed me his huge collection of guns. One rifle after another. I sat there nodding, wondering what to say.

The American dream was what my father had offered my mother. Escape from small-town Suffolk to a place of Pontiacs and huge fridges. She liked Americans so much she married two of them, with an English man in between. “He bought me a lovely little handbag pistol,” she said of my father. This was as glamorous to her as the menthols she smoked: a special ladies’ gun.

This casual relationship to gun ownership is different in different parts of the US. For the US is several different countries. When, later in the 80s, I moved to New York, gun violence was seen as a black crime.

I had moved to the US because it seemed to offer everything I already knew and more. But very quickly I knew that this was an extremely alien culture. It is an illusion of popular culture that makes us think it isn’t. Somehow, though,  Europeans still think they “know” America because they once had brunch in Manhattan. Americans are just like us but with bigger portions, some still say. We can prescribe our liberal solutions to their terrible problems if they would only listen.

This is delusional. The unknowability of the US, even to itself, has been brought into focus by Donald Trump’s election. Nowhere is it more apparent than in the debate around gun control. An angry white man is in the White House. And angry white men who murder scores of people with guns are not terrorists, apparently.

The reaction to these massacres is that more people go out and buy guns to protect themselves. This mentality is incomprehensible to many of us. Never mind North Korea, Americans excel at killing each other with guns and opioids. The terror that they fear is coming over some mythical wall is in fact rooted inside their own culture.

The same figures are rehearsed after every massacre. It is estimated that the US has the highest number of privately owned guns in the world – in 2012, there were thought to be about 300m, held by about one-third of the population (enough for every man, woman and child in the country to have a gun). The second-ranked country is Yemen. In the US, 18 young people are killed every day by guns. Meanwhile, suicide – the majority by gun – is the second most common cause of death for Americans between 15 and 34.

One of the saddest parts of Gary Younge’s devastating book Another Day in the Death of America is when parents of children gunned down speak of relief. The mother of Tyshon Anderson, who was shot in a gang-related incident at 18, says: “I don’t have to worry about him being out there killing nobody else or nobody else trying to kill him.”

Every right-minded liberal can point to Australia, where gun control has brought the homicide rate right down. Legislation would implement background checks for gun ownership and yet …
Gun fairs are visited as if by Victorian anthropologists. Who are these people? The National Rifle Association is powerful, and, of course, the militias were out recently in Charlottesville. This is not “left-behind” America, but it is a part we find utterly foreign.

The anti-centralised state narrative may be wrapped in second-amendment bluster, but part of the problem with gun control is precisely this word “control”. Obamacare is rejected again as something to do with control. I offer no solution to the massacres. I don’t particularly like the US’s reliance on cars either, but I can’t see the country without them.

The now-familiar argument in the US on gun control is that of two different nations circling each other. It seems to me much of the US cannot be understood as a developed nation. Look at the levels of inequality, the infant mortality rates, the addiction, the self-inflicted wounds. The absolute rejection of a centralised state is part of its notion of freedom. That this culture is not ours, that it is something entirely different, gets brought home time and again.

When I was being taught to shoot by an American ex-cop, he emphasised that children must learn how to behave around guns. At what age, I asked him, did he think they should have their first gun?

“Three” he said.

Note EU-Digest: Let us also not forget that the US has coined the phrase "collateral damage" when they carpet bomb thousands of innocent civilians to their death in areas of conflict, they have basically created themselves in the name of "democracy" .

EU-Digest

Europe’s new “Indispensable Nations”- by Joschka Fischer

After the shock of the United Kingdom’s Brexit referendum and Donald Trump’s election as President of the United States in 2016, this will be a decisive year for Europe. Upcoming parliamentary elections in France, Germany, the Netherlands, and possibly Italy will decide whether the European Union will hold together, or whether it will disintegrate under the neo-nationalist wave sweeping the West.

Meanwhile, the Brexit negotiations will begin in earnest, providing a glimpse of the future of the EU-UK relationship. And Trump’s inauguration on January 20 may someday be remembered as a watershed moment for Europe.

Judging by Trump’s past statements about Europe and its relationship with the US, the EU should be preparing for some profound shocks. The incoming US president, an exponent of the new nationalism, does not believe in European integration.

Here he has an ally in Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has long tried to destabilize the EU by supporting nationalist forces and movements in its member states. If the Trump administration supports or turns a blind eye to those efforts, the EU – sandwiched between Russian trolls and Breitbart News – will have to brace itself for challenging times indeed.

The consequences for the EU will be even more serious if, in addition to setting the US relationship with Russia on a new foundation, Trump continues to call into question America’s security guarantee for Europe. Such a move would be at the expense of NATO, which has institutionalized the US security umbrella for more than six decades. Europeans would suddenly find themselves standing alone against a Russia that has increasingly employed military means to challenge borders, such as in Ukraine, and to reassert its influence – or even hegemony – over Eastern Europe.

We will soon know what comes next for NATO, but much harm has already been done. Security guarantees are not just a matter of military hardware. The guarantor also must project a credible message that it is willing to defend its allies whenever necessary. Thus, such arrangements depend largely on psychology, and on a country’s trustworthiness vis-à-vis friends and foes alike. When that credibility is damaged, there is a growing risk of provocation – and, with it, the threat of escalation into larger crises, or even armed conflict.

Given this risk, the EU should now shore up what it has left with respect to NATO and focus on salvaging its own institutional, economic, and legal integration. But it should also look to its member states to provide a second security option.

The EU itself is based on soft power: it was not designed to guarantee European security, and it is not positioned in its current form to confront a hard-power challenge. This means that it will fall to its two largest and economically strongest countries, France and Germany, to bolster Europe’s defense. Other countries such as Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain, and Poland will also have a role to play, but France and Germany are indispensable.

Of course, living in continental Europe means having Russia as a neighbor, and neighborly relations, generally speaking, should be based on peace, cooperation, and mutual respect (especially when one’s neighbor is a nuclear power). But Europeans cannot harbor any illusions about Russia’s intent. The Kremlin approaches foreign policy as a zero-sum game, which means that it will always prioritize military strength and geopolitical power over cooperative security arrangements.

Russia does not view weakness or the lack of a threat from its neighbors as a basis for peace, but rather as an invitation to extend its own sphere of influence. So, power asymmetry in Eastern Europe will lead only to instability. If Europe wants a stable, enduring peace, it first must ensure that it is taken seriously, which is clearly not the case today. Europe can credibly strengthen its security only if France and Germany work together toward the same goal, which they will have an opportunity to do after their elections this year.

EU diplomats used to murmur off the record that Germany and France would never see eye to eye on military and financial issues, owing to their different histories and cultures. But if security conditions take a turn for the worse, that may no longer be the case. Indeed, reaching a compromise on both sides of the Rhine should not be so difficult: France undoubtedly has the experience to lead on defense; and the same goes for Germany on financial matters.

If pursuing this European security option prompts the US to renew its own security guarantee, so much the better. Meanwhile, the EU should also forge a post-Brexit cooperative strategic arrangement with the UK, whose geopolitical position and security interests will remain unchanged.The old EU developed into an economic power because it was protected beneath the US security umbrella. But without this guarantee, it can address its current geopolitical realities only by developing its own capacity to project political and military power. Six decades after the Treaty of Rome established the European Economic Community, history and current developments are pushing France and Germany to shape Europe’s future once again.

EU Defense Cooperation: Threat or Benefit for NATO? - by Markus Heinrich

Britain has always been a somewhat half-hearted member of the EU. The country has been reluctant to hand over competences to Brussels and principally opposed to “ever closer union” — even as it was eager to widen the EU’s membership.

Has the time come for the EU to say "bye-bye NATO" ?

As a reluctant (and soon to be ex) participant in European integration, the British worldview has been, and continues to be, Atlanticist rather than European.

As a firmly Altanticist nation, Britain has been vehemently opposed to any EU military structures. It deemed NATO as the one and only framework for providing security in the Euro-Atlantic area.

But with Britain set to leave the EU some time in 2019 – based on Theresa May’s announcement that Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty will be triggered in March 2017 and the assumption that a successful exit is negotiated within the two-year time limit – a major obstacle to EU defense cooperation will be removed in the foreseeable future.

Negotiating Brexit will be a difficult and complex process that will occupy politicians and diplomats on both sides of the English Channel for some time. Even so, there are signs that the EU is determined that this will not prevent its defense agenda from progressing.

France and Germany have been leading calls for enhanced European defense cooperation (such as a permanent EU military headquarters and the sharing of military assets).

The Franco-German proposals were outlined by French defense minister Jean-Yves Le Drian and his German counterpart Ursula von der Leyen in September 2016.

Von der Leyen called for a European defense union – initially comprised of a core group, but open to all EU members – comparing it to a “Schengen of defense.”

The recent EU summit in Bratislava – at which Britain was not represented – saw Franco-German proposals for defense cooperation generally well received by member states. The plan is therefore not just a Franco-German objective, but is likely to enjoy wider support in a 28-1 member EU.

A concrete example of how European defense collaboration could benefit from Brexit is the European Defence Agency (EDA).

The EDA was established in 2004 to “support the Member States and the Council in their effort to improve European defense capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain the European Security and Defence Policy as it stands now and develops in the future.” Its three main missions are to:

1. Support the development of European defense capabilities and military cooperation

2. Stimulate defense research and technology to strengthen Europe’s defense industry

3. Act as a military interface to EU policies

An increase in the EDA’s meager budget has been vetoed in the past by Britain. With its veto gone post Brexit – and given the generally positive reception of the Franco-German proposals at the Bratislava summit – a future budget increase for the EDA is a distinct possibility. 


Read more: EU Defense Cooperation: Threat or Benefit for NATO? - The Globalist

EU: It is high time we stand up for our Europe - "united we stand but divided we will fall"

Our Europe is in danger. 

Nationalism, xenophobia and insularity threaten its fundamental values.

Our Europe, the most impressive political construction of modern times, cannot stand by as national governments jeopardise its democratic, economic, social, cultural and environmental model.

They have shown inertia and distrust when faced first with economic crisis, then with refugees and most recently with terrorism. Each successive threat has been worsened by a lack of cooperation and coordination between European governments.

The time has surely come for Europe’s citizens to make our voices heard, to express our desire for ever stronger unity and solidarity, for deeper political union.

Europe is not the cause of our problems, but the solution. For too long, our fate has sat in the hands of national and foreign leaders and partially discredited European institutions.

Once a symbol of peace, openness and solidarity, Europe has become synonymous with insularity, exclusion and self-absorption. And where Europeans are increasingly struggling to see their values reflected.

Let us not consign ourselves to helplessness, to a lack of confidence, to doubts and fears, to images of refugees dying at our borders because of a lack of solidarity from member states and because our leaders do not have the courage to do the right thing.

It is now urgent for us to move beyond the strictly national arena and to construct a truly European political foundation to take on the challenges of globalisation, modernity and a revived democracy through the direct elections of EU leaders and a progressive independent foreign policy which is not tied to any destructive foreign nation's policy.

Our sense of belonging to a European people, to a community of values, is too often thwarted by our inability to translate this desire into politics.  We need to continuously send messages to our political leaders, stating that Europe is our nation and that it can have no future without political union and the construction of a firm shell around a united European state with its own foreign policy.

“If we cannot dream of a better Europe, we will never construct a better Europe” Václav Havel, former President of the Czech Republic once said.. Let us show our desire for Europe to step forward.

Let us fly Europe’s flag – our flag – on our social network profiles, our web pages, our houses, our cars and bikes, everywhere!

This call is supported, among others, by VOXEurope, Fabien Cazenave, Pietro De Matteis (Federalist Party), Bernard Guetta (France Inter), Eric Jozsef (Libération), Ovidiu Nahoi (Dilema Veche, RFI Romania), Wojciech Przybylski (Eurozine), José Ignacio Torreblanca (El País), Anne Tréca, Nicolas Vadot (Le Vif), Francesco Belluscio, Mario Benvenuto, Esther Cordero, Luca Feltrin, Sabrina Paglierani, Davide Pozzo, EU-Digest

EU-Digest

Syria: The Mother Of All US Humanitarian and Foreign Policy disasters

David T. Jones writes in the Epoch Times; "The proverbial “law of holes” states, “When you find yourself in one—stop digging.”

So far as Syria is concerned, we seem unwilling to learn this lesson.

And, brutal as is the reality, the West has lost the war in Syria. Whatever our kaleidoscope of objectives has been, ranging from removal of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad to support of “democratic” rebels to creation of an Aleppo ceasefire, we have failed.

There is no reason to believe al-Assad will cease military action in Syria until he has eliminated opposition—whether it be Daesh (aka ISIS/ISIL/IS) or assorted “rebel” groups of whatever political philosophy. As long as al-Assad has Russian, Iranian, and Hezbollah assistance, he will prevail.

Nor is Aleppo’s ongoing humanitarian disaster going to cause a twinge by those conducting it. The fighting has continued since July 2012; various estimates suggest 30,000 dead with several hundred thousand civilians and combatants remaining in the besieged portion of the city.

However, remembering Russian casualties during World War II, e.g., siege of Leningrad (900 days; one million civilians and 300,000 military died) or Stalingrad (1.1 million total casualties; 478,000 killed), Putin may well conclude Aleppo’s losses are inconsequential—and the Western whiners are trying to play a human rights card in a military reality poker game.

Indeed, Western leaders have misplayed their opportunities from the beginning. We apparently believed the Arab Spring, starting in 2010, which swept away creaky dictatorships in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, as well as forcing political change throughout the Middle East, would also evict al-Assad.

After all, al-Assad looks like a gawky ophthalmologist (his academic training) rather than presenting the visage of an iron-fisted dictator. Implicitly, we thought he would decamp with lovely wife, family, and uncounted fortune to comfortable retirement in some dictator-accepting/friendly country. But there was steel where we expected Jello; his Army stayed loyal, fought hard, and beat down various rebel groups. Al-Assad “channeled” his father who never caviled at massacring opponents.

Western leaders declined to put “boots on the ground”—removing al-Assad wasn’t initially believed to be worth body bags coming home—or even bomb his airfields and destroy his Air Force, his trump card in combating rebels. So fighting continued, and we lost the easy course of action. President Obama backed away from his personal “line in the sand” demanding al-Assad remove chemical weapons; then the Russians were able to arrange such a removal/elimination and, concurrently, seize a principal position in the struggle.

Consequently, Syrians have fled by millions. Statistics on the tragedy are politicized, but one estimate has 4.8 million refugees plus 6.6 million displaced within the country from a population of 17 million. Most refugees are in neighboring Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan.

But the exodus has also disoriented Europe, which in a misplaced burst of humanitarianism opened its doors to more than a million refugees."

 The proverbial “law of holes” states, “When you find yourself in one—stop digging.”

So far as Syria is concerned, we seem unwilling to learn this lesson.

And, brutal as is the reality, the West has lost the war in Syria. Whatever our kaleidoscope of objectives has been, ranging from removal of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad to support of “democratic” rebels to creation of an Aleppo ceasefire, we have failed.

There is no reason to believe al-Assad will cease military action in Syria until he has eliminated opposition—whether it be Daesh (aka ISIS/ISIL/IS) or assorted “rebel” groups of whatever political philosophy. As long as al-Assad has Russian, Iranian, and Hezbollah assistance, he will prevail.

Nor is Aleppo’s ongoing humanitarian disaster going to cause a twinge by those conducting it. The fighting has continued since July 2012; various estimates suggest 30,000 dead with several hundred thousand civilians and combatants remaining in the besieged portion of the city.

However, remembering Russian casualties during World War II, e.g., siege of Leningrad (900 days; one million civilians and 300,000 military died) or Stalingrad (1.1 million total casualties; 478,000 killed), Putin may well conclude Aleppo’s losses are inconsequential—and the Western whiners are trying to play a human rights card in a military reality poker game.

Aleppo - Syria

Indeed, Western leaders have misplayed their opportunities from the beginning. We apparently believed the Arab Spring, starting in 2010, which swept away creaky dictatorships in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, as well as forcing political change throughout the Middle East, would also evict al-Assad.

After all, al-Assad looks like a gawky ophthalmologist (his academic training) rather than presenting the visage of an iron-fisted dictator. Implicitly, we thought he would decamp with lovely wife, family, and uncounted fortune to comfortable retirement in some dictator-accepting/friendly country. But there was steel where we expected Jello; his Army stayed loyal, fought hard, and beat down various rebel groups. Al-Assad “channeled” his father who never caviled at massacring opponents.

Western leaders declined to put “boots on the ground”—removing al-Assad wasn’t initially believed to be worth body bags coming home—or even bomb his airfields and destroy his Air Force, his trump card in combating rebels. So fighting continued, and we lost the easy course of action. President Obama backed away from his personal “line in the sand” demanding al-Assad remove chemical weapons; then the Russians were able to arrange such a removal/elimination and, concurrently, seize a principal position in the struggle.

Consequently, Syrians have fled by millions. Statistics on the tragedy are politicized, but one estimate has 4.8 million refugees plus 6.6 million displaced within the country from a population of 17 million. Most refugees are in neighboring Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan.

But the exodus has also disoriented Europe, which in a misplaced burst of humanitarianism opened its doors to more than a million refugees. "

Bottom line: Syria has become the mother of all US failed humanitarian and foreign policy disasters.

The question that Europe must answer, rather sooner than later is, can it continue to blindly walk in "lockstep" with the US, when it comes to their totally failed Middle East policies, or develop its own independent and more constructive foreign policy objectives?

EU-Digest

US Presidential Elections: Full Transcript of Donald Trump Foreign Policy Speech

Donald Trump

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump delivered a speech from Youngstown, Ohio this afternoon, during which he discussed his plan for defeating ISIS.

During his remarks, Trump declared that the United States is at war with radical Islam and that any country that opposes ISIS should be considered an ally.

Trump also blamed the rise of ISIS on President Obama and on Hillary Clinton, saying that their policies allowed the terrorist organization to flourish. Finally, Trump expanded upon his controversial Muslim ban, proposing a suspension of visas to countries that he described as “exporters” of terrorism.

He also proposed an ideological test to ensure those entering the country adhere to certain principles.

Click on the link below for the full transcript of Donald Trump’s August 15th speech, via the campaign’s website.

READ: Full Transcript of Donald Trump Foreign Policy Speech | Heavy.com

EU-US Relationship: The Atlantic Alliance needs a facelift - by RM

Everyone seems ton be in total agreement that the US and the EU (Europe) share a lot of common values going back all the way to the American war of independence and the majority of the people on both side of the pond hope it will remain that way. 

Europe and the US need to support each other in these ideals - even though if we look at the US  reasons for helping out Europe in times of need, for instance during the first and second world war, this support also came because of US self interest.

If the Nazi's had won the war in Europe they would also become a direct threat to the existence of the US.

A similar situation developed during the the cold war with the Soviet Union.

What some visionary Europeans are suggesting today is that times have changed. Even though the basic principles on a large number of issues, including human rights are still common ideals in the US and the EU, there are also many areas of disagreement..

These including: but are not limited to, foreign policy, the environment, privacy rights, trade, financial laws, military alliances (NATO), and agricultural safety standards.

In other words - what is good for America is not necessarily good for the EU.

The EU needs to do some basic homework as to figuring out what needs to be achieved from within if the EU wants to become a truly independent world  player and this brain-storming must also include developing a new framework for the Atlantic Alliance with the US.

It is high time this happens, before the more than 500 million inhabitants of the EU lose faith in this greatest European political project ever undertaken in history.


EU-Digest

US Foreign Policy-A New Intelligent Approach ? : Obama: "Being The Best Hammer Doesn't Mean Every Problem Is A Nail" - by Mark Lander

Not every Problem is a nail

President Obama on Wednesday May 28 tried to regain his statesman’s mantle, telling graduating cadets here that the nation they were being commissioned to serve would still lead the world and would not stumble into military misadventures overseas.

Speaking under leaden, chilly skies, Mr. Obama delivered the commencement address at the United States Military Academy.

“America must always lead on the world stage,” he said. “But U.S. military action cannot be the only – or even primary – component of our leadership in every instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail.”

Under pressure from critics who say the United States has been rudderless amid a cascade of crises, the president said that those who “suggest that America is in decline, or has seen its global leadership slip away – are either misreading history or engaged in partisan politics.”

A day after announcing that the last American soldier would leave Afghanistan at the end of 2016, the president told this latest class of Army officers that the United States faced a new, more diffuse threat in an arc of militancy stretching from the Middle East to the African Sahel.

Mr. Obama has been deeply frustrated by the criticism of his foreign policy, which during his first term was generally perceived as his strong suit. He has lashed out at critics, whom he accuses of reflexively calling for military action as the remedy for every crisis.

The overriding objective he said  is to avoid an error on the order of the Iraq war.

He brushed aside as reckless those who say the United States should consider enforcing a no-fly zone in Syria or supplying arms to Ukrainian troops.

In the speech, Mr. Obama described an array of priorities, ranging from the Iran nuclear negotiations to a new global climate change accord, which he said would occupy his final two-and-a-half years in office.

He also spoke of the need for the United States to look eastward to Asia, promoting his long efforts to negotiate a trans-Pacific trade agreement and pledging to defend American allies in the region in their territorial disputes with China in the South and East China Seas.

Note EU-Digest: Kudos to President Obama for at least showing the intention of his Administration to the world, in this major foreign policy speech at West Point, that the "gun-boat diplomacy" of the US is not acceptable anymore and has come to an end.   

Read more: ‘America Must Always Lead,’ Obama Tells West Point Graduates - NYTimes.com