EU Refugee Crises: Why Are EU Politicians Never Mentioning US Is To Blame For EU Refugee Crises? - by A. Bacevich

The Middle East: From Bad To Worse

‘If you break it, you own it.” Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn Rule, warning George W. Bush of the consequences of invading Iraq, turned out to be dead wrong.

Make that half wrong. Bush broke it — “it” being a swath of the greater Middle East. But the U.S. adamantly refuses to accept anything like ownership of the consequences stemming from Bush’s recklessly misguided acts and you will never hear a European politician openly admit to it.

Not least among those consequences is the crisis that finds refugees fleeing Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts of the Islamic world in search of asylum in the West. The European nations most directly affected have greeted this wave with more hostility than hospitality — Germany, for a time, at least offering a notable exception.

For its part, the U.S. has responded with pronounced indifference. In a gesture of undisguised tokenism, the Obama administration has announced it will admit a grand total of 10,000 Syrians — one-eightieth the number that Germany has agreed to accept this year alone.

No doubt proximity plays a part in explaining the contrast between German and U.S. attitudes. Viewed from Wichita or Walla Walla, the plight of those who hand themselves over to human traffickers in hopes of crossing the Mediterranean plays out at a great distance.

Syria is what Neville Chamberlain would have described as a faraway country of which Americans know nothing (and care less). And Iraq and Afghanistan are faraway countries that most Americans have come to regret knowing.

Such attitudes may be understandable. They are also unconscionable.

To attribute the refugee crisis to any single cause would be misleading. A laundry list has contributed: historical and sectarian divisions within the region; the legacy of European colonialism; the absence of anything even approximating enlightened local leadership able to satisfy the aspirations of people tired of corruption, economic stagnation, and authoritarian rule; the appeal — inexplicable to Westerners — of violent Islamic radicalism. All play a role.

USA: The Creator Of The George Bush Refugee Crises 

Yet when it comes to why this fragile structure collapsed just now we can point to a single explanation — the cascading after-effects of a decision made by Bush during the spring of 2002 to embrace a doctrine of preventative war.

The previous autumn, U.S. forces toppled the government of Afghanistan, punishing the Taliban for giving sanctuary to those who plotted the 9/11 attacks. Bush effectively abandoned Afghanistan to its fate and set out to topple another regime, one that had no involvement whatsoever in 9/11.

For Bush, going after Saddam Hussein’s Iraq formed part of a larger strategy. He and his lieutenants fancied that destroying the old order in the greater Middle East would position the U.S. to create a more amenable new order. Back in 1991, after a previous Iraq encounter, Bush’s father had glimpsed a “new world order.” Now a decade later, the son set out to transform the father’s vision into reality.

The administration called this its Freedom Agenda, which would begin in Iraq but find further application throughout the greater Middle East. Coercion rather than persuasion held the key to its implementation, its plausibility resting on unstoppable military power. For Bush’s inner circle, including Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz (but not Powell), victory was foreordained.

They miscalculated. The unsettled (but largely ignored) condition of Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban already hinted at the extent of that miscalculation. The chaos that descended upon Iraq as a direct result of the U.S. invasion affirmed it. The Freedom Agenda made it as far as Baghdad and there it died.

That Saddam was a brutal tyrant is a given. We need not mourn his departure. Yet while he ruled he at least kept a lid on things. Bush blew off that lid, naively expecting liberal democracy or at least deference to American authority to emerge. Instead, “liberating” Iraq produced conditions conducive to the violent radicalism today threatening to envelop the region.

The Islamic State offers but one manifestation of this phenomenon. Were it not for Bush’s invasion of Iraq, ISIL would not exist — that’s a fact. Responsibility for precipitating the rise of this vile movement rests squarely with Washington.

So rather than cluck over the reluctance of Greeks, Serbs, Hungarians and others to open their borders to those fleeing from the mess the U.S. played such a large part in creating, Americans would do better to engage in acts of contrition.

On the 10th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, former president Bush visited New Orleans, implicitly acknowledging that his administration’s response to that disaster just might have fallen a bit short. It was a handsome gesture. A similar gesture is in order toward the masses fleeing the region into Turkey and Europe.

It’s never too late to say to say you’re sorry. 

Note EU-Digest: as to our own "whimpy" EU politicians, who are supporting these totally failed US Middle East Policies, they ask no questions. 

They continue backing this madness with costly military assistance from the air and on the ground, financed by taxpayers money. 

Why are European Politicians not coming to their senses and develop their own independent foreign policies based on the real needs of the EU.

After all, as the saying goes, "charity begins at home" . 

Read more:  - by Andrew Bacevich The George W. Bush refugees – POLITICO

The Netherlands is the biggest net payer into EU coffers

 The Netherlands has been the biggest net payer into the EU’s coffers over the past five years, according to research by national statistics office CBS.

The CBS calculates the EU cost each person in the Netherlands just under €150 last year – or 0.4% of gross national income. In total, the Netherlands paid €6bn into the EU and got back €3.5bn in the form of grants, subsidies and discounts.

The CBS also calculates that if Britain had not been a member, the annual bill for the Netherlands would have been €442m higher. However, the likely impact of Britain’s withdrawal on the Dutch bill for EU membership will ‘depend on what form Brexit takes and what agreements are made between the European Union and Britain,’ the CBS said.

The agency also calculates that trade between Britain and the Netherlands has been boosted since the referendum in June. Between July and October, Dutch exports to Britain totalled €13bn, a rise of 5% on the year-earlier period. British exports to the Netherlands were up almost 3% to €7.5bn

Read more: The Netherlands is the biggest net payer into EU coffers - DutchNews.nl

EU: The race for EU membership – with 10 countries still trying to get in-the gate is temporarily closed

Politico reports that the United Kingdom might be trying to check out of the European Union, but there are at least 10 countries keen to be in. There’s a problem though: The EU’s golden age of expansion is over.

Sorry No More Room At The Inn

While national governments would like to ensure political stability in the EU’s neighborhood, they have no appetite to let those countries join before 2025. For some countries, such as Turkey, there’s almost no chance of ever joining. The European Parliament and countries such as Austria are already trying to suspend membership negotiations with Turkey.

“I won’t set a speed limit on the road to Europe,” said Johannes Hahn, the European commissioner responsible for EU enlargement, who insisted “Each candidate defines speed of joining via [its] own merit.”

At the same time, Hahn told a Western Balkans policy summit hosted by Friends of Europe on December 7, that there is a majority against EU enlargement in most EU countries. Instead of pushing EU national governments before they are ready Hahn suggested candidate countries focus on economic development and anti-corruption efforts.

Shada Islam, Europe director at Friends of Europe, is pessimistic. “I think we need to stop pretending and accept that there will be no new enlargement for many years — and that all these countries have a long way to go before they meet any of the key membership criteria,” Islam said, adding that given six to 10 years of continuous effort, the six Balkan nations may have a chance at membership.

The countries lining up for EU membership are becoming restless. “Enlargement is not high on the EU’s agenda and we know it,” said Natalie Sabanadze, Georgia’s ambassador to the EU.

Prior to the closed-door policy of the Juncker Commission, leaders in countries wanting to join the EU could promise to voters that EU membership would be forthcoming in exchange for sometimes difficult institutional and policy reforms. Today, even if a country meets all of the EU’s requirements it may be blocked for political reasons.

Western Balkans countries see themselves as rooted in Europe and warn that the EU will hurt itself if it fails to draw them close. Tanja Miščevič, Serbia’s chief membership negotiator, said “The Schengen system cannot function, and energy union cannot be completed, without the Western Balkan countries.”

Ditmir Bushati, Albania’s foreign minister, said that while it is clear “No one will be able to join EU in foreseeable future” it would be dangerous to allow Russia to fill a vacuum in his region.

If anyone can become a surprise front-runner in the membership race it is Albania, already a NATO member and mostly free from the complications of the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s.

All other prospective EU members in the Western Balkans suffer fundamental complications. For Macedonia, it’s as simple as Greece refusing to even recognize its name. Allowing Montenegro and Kosovo to join without Serbia alongside them could create a security risk for both countries. Bosnia and Herzegovina is in the worst position of all and may hold these countries back if the EU insists they join in bloc formation.

“I won’t set a speed limit on the road to Europe,” said Johannes Hahn, the European commissioner responsible for EU enlargement, who insisted “Each candidate defines speed of joining via [its] own merit.”

At the same time, Hahn told a Western Balkans policy summit hosted by Friends of Europe on December 7, that there is a majority against EU enlargement in most EU countries. Instead of pushing EU national governments before they are ready Hahn suggested candidate countries focus on economic development and anti-corruption efforts.

Shada Islam, Europe director at Friends of Europe, is pessimistic. “I think we need to stop pretending and accept that there will be no new enlargement for many years — and that all these countries have a long way to go before they meet any of the key membership criteria,” Islam said, adding that given six to 10 years of continuous effort, the six Balkan nations may have a chance at membership.

    “Georgia is stubbornly pursuing [the] European and Euro-Atlantic course despite difficulties and costs involved” — Natalie Sabanadze, the Georgian ambassador

The countries lining up for EU membership are becoming restless. “Enlargement is not high on the EU’s agenda and we know it,” said Natalie Sabanadze, Georgia’s ambassador to the EU.

Prior to the closed-door policy of the Juncker Commission, leaders in countries wanting to join the EU could promise to voters that EU membership would be forthcoming in exchange for sometimes difficult institutional and policy reforms. Today, even if a country meets all of the EU’s requirements it may be blocked for political reasons.

Western Balkans countries see themselves as rooted in Europe and warn that the EU will hurt itself if it fails to draw them close. Tanja Miščevič, Serbia’s chief membership negotiator, said “The Schengen system cannot function, and energy union cannot be completed, without the Western Balkan countries.”

Ditmir Bushati, Albania’s foreign minister, said that while it is clear “No one will be able to join EU in foreseeable future” it would be dangerous to allow Russia to fill a vacuum in his region.

If anyone can become a surprise front-runner in the membership race it is Albania, already a NATO member and mostly free from the complications of the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s.

All other prospective EU members in the Western Balkans suffer fundamental complications. For Macedonia, it’s as simple as Greece refusing to even recognize its name. Allowing Montenegro and Kosovo to join without Serbia alongside them could create a security risk for both countries. Bosnia and Herzegovina is in the worst position of all and may hold these countries back if the EU insists they join in bloc formation.

Don’t expect the European Commission to give firm indications about any of this in 2017: The EU promises a policy update only in spring 2018.

Several EU officials POLITICO spoke to suggested that with Brexit and a new budget to negotiate and implement from 2020-2026, the EU simply doesn’t have room on its plate until 2027 to consider new members.

Goran Svilanović, a former Serbian foreign minister, and now head of the Regional Cooperation Council, said he is “very frustrated” by this approach and says that it would be better to “start negotiating. Keep us busy. Help us be successful.”

No country has even turned around a membership application in less than five years (Finland is the current record holder), and for former Warsaw Pact and Yugoslav states, 10-15 years is typical.

If Iceland decided to reapply for EU membership it would immediately shoot to the front of the queue, and if Scotland were to achieve independence, it would not be far behind. The Scottish government is keen. “As part of our response to the EU referendum we are exploring all options to protect Scotland’s relationship with Europe,” a government spokesperson said.

Another potential big member, Ukraine, is realistic about its membership prospects. Given the country’s internal difficulties and the rejection by Dutch voters of the country’s ‘Association Agreement’ with the EU, diplomats say neither it nor the EU are ready for membership. It would in any case be “suicidal” to join the EU while Russia is headed by Vladimir Putin, a senior diplomat told POLITICO.

Natalie Sabanadze, the Georgian ambassador, said Georgia is in a similar position. “Georgia is stubbornly pursuing [the] European and Euro-Atlantic course despite difficulties and costs involved,” she said.

THE CANDIDATES

ALBANIA
Not before 2025
Chances of joining: 80 percent

Pros: Albania has shown an ability to deliver bipartisan reforms and is “the least screwed-up country” in the Western Balkans, according to a diplomat active in the region. The country largely avoided the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s, allowing it distance from the problems of other EU applicants in the region.

Cons: Formal negotiations have not yet started, and corruption and organized crime remain serious problems, according to the European Commission. The Commission has also criticized the politicization of Albania’s courts.

MONTENEGRO
Not before 2027
Chances of joining: 90 percent

Pros: Montenegro is the richest Western Balkan nation per capita and has shown ongoing willingness to be part of Western institutions, as illustrated by its nearly completed bid for NATO membership.

Cons: Corruption remains “prevalent” and a “serious problem” according to the Commission, and other political and economic progress is moderate. Allowing Montenegro membership without including Serbia would expose the small nation to a security risk.

SERBIA
Not before 2027
Chances of joining: 80 percent

Pros: Serbia is the biggest of the Western Balkan countries hoping to join the EU, and could be a pro-EU stabilizing force in the region and good neighbor if kept within the EU’s orbit. The Commission has praised Serbia for aligning its legislation with the EU across the board.

Cons: There has been no progress over the past year in fighting corruption. Serbia may also continue refusing to recognize Kosovo unless offered EU membership, which may be tactically clever but breaches the spirit of EU norms.

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Not before 2027, possibly much later
Chances of joining: 50 percent

Pros: This multi-ethnic, multi-religion country could one day be a poster child for the EU’s ability to forge unity from diversity. And if the EU membership process can drag Bosnia up to speed with its neighbors, the prize could be a transformed region.

Cons: Not even the citizens of this country can agree on its basis or continued existence. The country’s constitution will also need a dramatic makeover to meet EU fundamental rights and other standards.

KOSOVO
Not before 2027
Chances of joining: 30 percent

Pros: Kosovo stands to gain strength in numbers and valuable institution-building capacity through the EU membership process, and has already adopted the euro as its currency.

Cons: It is home to a troubled EU rule-of-law mission (which at times has had 2,000 staff members), and due to deep political polarization and ongoing corruption, the journey to EU membership will be a long one. Its sovereignty is not recognized by five EU countries, nor by its biggest neighbor Serbia.

MACEDONIA
Not before 2030
Chances of joining: 50 percent

Pros: The country has fewer internal problems than Bosnia.

Cons: Membership negotiations have been painfully slow. Greece objects to even the name “Macedonia” as it sees this as a threat to the territorial integrity of its own Macedonia region. Macedonia also has numerous disputes with Bulgaria and there are persistent concerns to democracy and rule of law.

GEORGIA
Not before 2035
Chances of joining: 20 percent

Pros: Its government could not be more positive about the EU in its rhetoric. “Georgia has no alternative,” Ambassador Sabanadze told POLITICO. “Georgians want to live in a normal, European-style democracy and they want to safeguard political independence and territorial integrity.”

Cons: Georgia is saddled with its former relationship with Russia, and like Ukraine, faces a frustrated path to EU and NATO membership, independent of the reforms it delivers as part of its membership bid.

MOLDOVA
Not before 2035
Chances of joining: 50 percent

Pros: Moldova has strong ties, a shared language and a similar culture to its neighbor Romania.

Cons: The small country has a breakaway republic (Transnistria) supported by a Russian military presence, and is the poorest of the prospective EU members. A pro-Russian, anti-EU president was elected last month.

UKRAINE
Not before 2035
Chances of joining: 20 percent

Pros: Millions of Ukrainians are so committed to moving into the EU’s political and economic orbit they are willing to protest or shed blood. EU links are a means to achieving stability in the post-Soviet era.

Cons: Even a loose “Association Agreement” proved too much for Dutch voters to accept in 2016, and political fears delayed EU government support for visa-free access for Ukrainians into the Schengen area. Its easter regions are war-torn and Crimea was annexed by Russia in 2014.

TURKEY
Possible joining date: Not applicable
Chances of joining: 0 percent

Pros: Inclusion of Turkey into Western institutions, and a sign that moderate Islam is welcome at the world’s top tables.

Cons: Turkey has been drifting toward authoritarianism under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, with fundamental rule of law and freedom of expression problems. Only a small percentage of the country is geographically in Europe. Some EU institutions such as the Parliament, and governments such as Austria’s, want membership talks suspended.

ICELAND
Not before 2022.
Chances of joining: 100 percent if a reapplication is made. 20 percent overall.

Pros: One of the world’s oldest democracies, Iceland boasts a strategic mid-Atlantic location, high education levels and strong cultural links to Europe.

Cons: Iceland has permanent Euroskeptic factions born from concern about protecting the nation’s fishing rights (which would be limited and partially collectivized in the EU), and the fact that it got rich on its own, and doesn’t need the EU to develop.

SCOTLAND
Possible joining date: Five years after applying, meaning not before 2024.
Chances of joining: 90 percent if application is made. 20 percent overall.

Pros: An independent Scotland in the EU would be a major prize for European integrationists. Scotland is EU-enthusiastic, with a government spokesperson calling Brexit: “a democratic outrage” against Scottish voters.

Cons: Anything short of Scotland’s full independence from the U.K. might trigger Spain to block Scotland’s bid to avoid setting a precedent for Catalan nationalists.

EU-Digest

The Netherlands: Foreign ministry says it wary of 'long arm' of Turkish state - by Toby Sterling

The Netherlands said on Wednesday it would challenge every instance of the "long arm" of Ankara extending to its territory, after a report the Turkish embassy had sent home a list of Dutch Turks who might have sympathized with July's failed coup.

The Dutch foreign minister summoned Turkey's ambassador in The Hague after a report in De Telegraaf newspaper citing Yusuf Acar, who is both a diplomat and the chairman of the Dutch arm of Turkey's Directorate of Religious Affairs, as acknowledging he had compiled the list of "Gulenists".

Ankara accuses supporters of exiled cleric Fethullah Gulen of backing the short-lived coup in which over 240 people were killed. In Turkey, over 100,000 people have been detained, suspended or sacked from judiciary, media and civil service and tensions have spread within the 500,000 Dutch-Turkish community, with some suspected Gulenist sympathizers facing death threats.

In a statement, Dutch Foreign Minister Bert Koenders said the Telegraaf report was "worrying."

"We're going to ask for clarification about this," Koenders said.

"In addition, we are going to engage with the Turkish authorities and the Diyanet organization in Ankara. That's part of our policy of challenging every incident that concerns the "long arm" with our Turkish counterparts."

Acar told De Telegraaf that he had assembled the list from publicly available sources in his capacity as an employee of the Turkish Embassy, and not as leader of the religious affairs directorate, the Diyanet.

Koenders said that "if true, that means the combination of a diplomatic status with the chairmanship of Diyanet is problematic."

As recently as Friday, the Dutch Diyanet had issued a press statement denying any involvement with "collecting information on Gulenist sympathizers".



Read more: Netherlands says it wary of 'long arm' of Turkish state | Reuters

The Netherlands - Ukraine: E.U. Reaches Compromise With the Netherlands on Closer Ukraine Ties

Referendum:PM Rutte reaches nebulous EU compromise

European Union leaders reached a compromise with the Netherlands on Thursday that should allow the bloc to enact an agreement on closer ties with Ukraine, regarded as a landmark deal to counter the influence of Russia.

Prime Minister Mark Rutte of the Netherlands said on Thursday that he now had the necessary guarantees to start pushing the agreement through his country’s Parliament and to overcome the objections of Dutch voters, who voted against the agreement in a referendum in April.

The Netherlands has been the lone holdout in ratifying the agreement within the European bloc’s 28 member nations.

“I am going to fight to get a majority” in Parliament, Mr. Rutte said. “We will have to see. It won’t be easy. We’ll have to work hard for it.”

If it is approved, the deal would allow the European Union to show a unified front against Russia, and to boost trade and cooperation with Ukraine, which has found it difficult to remain out of Moscow’s sphere of influence.

“The E.U. can now keep a united front against the destabilizing policies of Russia,” Mr. Rutte said.

The agreement between Ukraine and the European Union had looked like a done deal until earlier this year, when the Dutch government was forced into a nonbinding, or advisory, referendum. The rejection by voters had left the bloc in a conundrum because the agreement needed unanimous approval from member countries.

Under the compromise, Mr. Rutte obtained assurances the agreement was not a step toward European Union membership for Ukraine, and that it could not be used as one in the future. The deal does not provide a collective-security guarantee or extra money for Ukraine, and it also requires the Ukrainian government to do more to counter corruption.

The Dutch prime minister said enacting the deal was essential for national and geopolitical reasons, and pointed to Russia’s involvement in the Ukrainian conflict and its annexation of Crimea.

The Netherlands will hold national elections on March 15, and the move to sidestep the advisory referendum results with an updated agreement might not play well with an electorate that has been increasingly prone to snubbing the political elite.

In a post on Twitter, Geert Wilders, a lawmaker known for his opposition to Islam, immigration and the European Union, posted a photo of Mr. Rutte with the Dutch words for “Resign and go.”

Mr. Rutte also realized the challenge ahead.

“This is not an election-winning point,” he said. “It is not a vote winner. But my job is ultimately to make decisions in the interest of the Netherlands and our security.”

Note EU-Digest: Details of the compromise were not announced and the statement by PM Rutte of the Netherlands on this so-called compromise are still nebulous .

Read more: E.U. Reaches Compromise With the Netherlands on Closer Ukraine Ties - The New York Times

France: French foreign minister says Trump's approach to China is 'not clever'

The French foreign minister has described Donald Trump’s approach to China as “not very clever”, warning the US president-elect not to threaten or lecture Beijing as “we do not talk like that to a partner”.

Jean-Marc Ayrault was responding to Trump’s threats of a trade or currency war with China, as well as his surprise decision to speak directly by phone to the Taiwan president, Tsai Ing-wen.

Beijing lodged a complaint over the phone call, which it saw as a breach of the “one China” principle that officially considers the independently governed island to be part of the same single Chinese nation as the mainland.

In an unusual piece of public advice to an incoming US president, Ayrault told TV channel France 2: “Beware of China. It is a great country. There may be disagreements with China, but we do not talk like that to a partner. We must avoid getting into a spiral where things are out of control.

“When China feels challenged on its unity, that is not necessarily very clever. We will have to be very careful, but we can hope as the days go by the new American team has learned enough to manage an uncertain work with more coolness and responsibility.”

Trump stood firm on the issue on Sunday, saying the US did not necessarily have to stick to its longstanding position that Taiwan is part of one China.

By the beginning of this week, the Chinese response became more hardline. On Monday, Beijing warned any individual who threatened China’s interests in Taiwan that it would “lift a rock that would crush his feet”.

On Wednesday, An Fengshan, a spokesman for China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, said a US approach that favoured formal recognition of Taiwan threatened stability in the region.

“Upholding the ‘one China’ principle is the political basis of developing China-US relations, and is the cornerstone of peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, he said. “If this basis is interfered with or damaged, then the healthy, stable development of China-US relations is out of the question, and peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait will be seriously impacted.”

Until now, the French government has made little noise about the election of Trump, as it tries to gauge the extent of his likely influence on foreign policy, including towards Iran and Russia.

Broadly, the view in France is that Trump has little to gain from a downturn in relations with China when so much else needs to be addressed in Europe and the Middle East. French politicians are anxious that Trump does not seek to tear up the Iran nuclear deal and have noticed that China has been publicly advising the US not to do so.

On Monday, China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, urged all sides to stick to the six-nation pact agreed last year. Without mentioning the US directly, Wang said: “Maintaining the deal’s continued, comprehensive and effective implementation is the responsibility and common interest of all parties, and should not be impacted by changes in the internal situation of each country.”

Ayrault has a history of speaking his mind, having accused the UK foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, of lying during the EU referendum campaign. In an interview with CNN during the US presidential election campaign, he described Trump’s foreign policy plans as “very confused”.

On Wednesday, he said the Trump administration would be judged by its deeds, but the US president-elect had selected “an unusual team after an usual election”.

Read more: French foreign minister says Trump's approach to China is 'not clever'

THE TRUMP DOCTRINE: Alliance Between Russia - US? As Tillerson - Putin′s friend becomes Trump′s Secretary of State

He's not even on the job yet, and Rex Tillerson is already facing a stiff headwind: The 64-year-old has no government experience; as the CEO of Exxon Mobil Corporation he cut business deals with autocrats, even allowing them to pin medals on his chest. Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio tweeted that he doesn't want a friend of Putin's in the State Department. Senator John McCain of Arizona, also a Republican, criticized Tillerson's close ties to the Kremlin as well. New Jersey Democratic Senator Bob Menendez called the decision "absurd." Others will join the chorus of critics. None of this bodes well for the Senate confirmation hearing that the future secretary of state will face. Majority approval seems anything but certain.

Nevertheless, Donald Trump has chosen him, and thus chosen to pick yet another fight with his own party. Why?

Both men see foreign policy as a business endeavor. And, to a certain degree it is - especially in the USA. But it is also something more. What about areas in which the USA has nothing to gain financially; for instance, when it comes to defending human rights? Those who are engaged in defending human dignity around the globe generally don't make a lot of friends - especially among dictators. For decades, American secretaries of state have done just that alongside their colleagues in Western Europe. And they have been successful if one considers the growing number of democracies throughout the world.

Note EU-Digest: the EU better start preparing a plan B, in case the US cuts off their umbilical cord with the US, on which they have come to rely so heavily.

Read more: Opinion: Rex Tillerson - Putin′s friend and Trump′s secretary of state | Opinion | DW.COM | 13.12.2016