A question might haunt Washington: who should decide on international policy, the US alone or in consultation with allies? Ancient Rome faced the same trouble.
On December 15, the head of the UK intelligence agency MI6, Blaise Metreweli, in her first public speech, said, “We are now operating in a space between peace and war,” with “an interlocking web of security challenges.” She stressed she is focused on the multi-faceted threat posed by Russia, which is “testing us in the grey zone with tactics that are just below the threshold of war.”
On Ukraine, she minced no words, calling “the menace of an aggressive, expansionist and revisionist Russia” and insisting the UK would maintain pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin. She added that Moscow is exporting chaos, a comment that echoed eerily, given the carnage of Bondi Beach in Australia, where a couple of Muslim extremists killed at least 12 people and wounded around 40 others at the Jewish festival of Hanukkah.
On December 11, EU member states agreed to freeze Russian assets indefinitely, marking a significant step toward their use. The speech and the freeze mark a divergence between the UK, EU, and the US, which appeared somewhat hasty in pursuing a peace agreement with Russia. Almost all the American allies oppose the peace agreement that President Donald Trump initially promised to Russia.
The US-Europe split centers on Kyiv, with the UK playing a key role given its historical ties to America. The current tension could take a different turn if the radical right were to win elections in some major European countries. It might happen, but not for sure and not for at least one year. By then, the trajectory of transatlantic ties could be set.
The apparent goal is not to move away from the US but to steer the US administration in a different direction. Unlike what some propagandists might claim, these countries do not want to align with China, which is supporting Russia against Ukraine.
The issue is: in this movement, will the ties only stretch or tear apart? Ultimately, the EU could become stronger, and the UK might have more reasons to pursue closer cooperation or even rejoin the union. What will the US do? Oppose it or turn it to its advantage?
There are similar concerns among US allies in Asia, though they are not voiced so loudly. Japan does not have a peace treaty with Russia, and South Korea does not have one with North Korea (Russia’s ally). They all worry that if Putin were to be given a win in Ukraine, he could turn his attention eastward.
Behind this question lies a larger issue that, until the Trump administration, had remained hidden but has now come to light. Who should decide US international policies: voters from Wyoming and Texas, or voters from New York and California, along with their pals east (the UK, EU, and NATO) and west (Japan, Korea, Australia)? There are reasons to go either way.
If you want to combine strength and GDP ($30 + 35 trillion, as outlined in the latest US National Security report) and project soft power, you need the latter. If you’re worried your core power has weakened, choose the former. The right approach should perhaps be to balance both. Now might be a good time to do so.
The problem is that the US president is elected in Wyoming and Texas, not in London, Berlin, or Tokyo. It is an imperial quandary that Rome faced in its history.
First, only citizens of Rome, the Urbs, were Roman citizens. The key event of the Republic was the Social War (91-88 BC), which followed Rome and its allies (socii) defeating the Carthaginians. The allies demanded full citizenship in exchange for their critical support of Rome in previous wars (see also here). They didn’t want the resurrection of Carthage or a Hellenistic kingdom to overthrow Rome; instead, they sought to steer Rome onto a different path.
Rome yielded. The Lex Plautia Papiria extended citizenship to all free inhabitants of peninsular Italy south of the Po River. This effectively made all of Italy a politically unified entity of Roman citizens. Later, to avoid that situation, the people of Cisalpine Gaul were granted Latin rights and full citizenship by Julius Caesar in 49 BCE.
In 212 AD, Caracalla extended Roman citizenship to all free inhabitants of the empire. During Caracalla’s reign, the Han Empire in China fell to a rebellion, and China did not regain unity for nearly 500 years. Meanwhile, the Roman Empire lasted for 12 more centuries and spawned several other empires that claimed to be its successors.
Here, there is perhaps a delicate lesson for Trump and his administration. The US socii don’t want to topple America, nor do they want full American citizenship, unlike what the mischievous Italian socii of Rome demanded. But they require their strategic interests to be considered.
Some in Washington may see allies as a headache. They are indeed troublesome, but more dependable than vassals who betray, as Yugoslavia, China, and Albania did to the USSR during the Cold War. The USSR had to let them go or force them back with tough invasions, such as in 1956 in Hungary, in 1968 in Czechoslovakia, and in 1979 in Afghanistan. In the end, the last invasion of Afghanistan failed and brought down the Soviet Empire.
On the other hand, if the European socii want to matter, as in ancient times with Carthage, they need to fight. They need a stronger army and a better economy to equip it. Neither is moving fast enough now. Here is one more trouble for the US.
