Včerajšnji govor J.D. Vancea, ameriškega podpredsednika, na mümchenski varnostni konferenci je evropske voditelje šokiral. Upravičeno. Po eni strani jim je nastavil ogledalo v svojem bistvu nedemokratičnega omejevanja svobode govora (cenzuriranje spletnih medijev, obsodbe in zaporne kazni za spletne zapise) in svobode politične izbire (anuliranje predsedniških volitev v Romuniji, grožnja anuliranja volitev v Nemčiji, politični pritiski Evropske komisije na desne vlade v Madžarski, Romuniji, Slovaški, Italiji). To politično omejevanje svobode govora in politične izbire je seveda posledica tega, ker vsaj polovica evropskega prebivalstva ne sledi družbenemu progresivizmu, ki ga forsira evropska politična elita. Predvsem glede migracij, spolne identitete, splava in kulture, pa tudi glede vojne v Ukrajini. Dobra ilustracija tega je lanska škandalozna otvoritev Olimpijskih iger v parizu. Vance je evropski politični eliti očital, da izvaja represijo nad vsaj polovico prebivalstva, ki deli bolj tradicionalne vrednote. 

In Vance je imel absolutno prav, ko je evropske politike okrcal, da izvajajo represijo nad necentrističnimi političnimi gibanji in strankami – nad “skrajno” levico in “skrajno” desnico. Dobra ilustracija tega je spet Francija, kjer “skrajno” levi in desni stranki kljub zmagi na volitvah nista dobili možnosti, da bi smeli sestaviti vlado. Enako se dogaja v Nemčiji glede napovedi izničenja volitev, če bi zmagala AfD.

To je bilo res šokantno za evropske politike, ki tako radi hodijo po svetu in predavajo vsem o demokraciji, človekovih pravicah in svobodi govora. Bolj rečeno, svoj pogled na svet in svoje vrednote vsiljujejo vsem ostalim.

Toda Vanceov govor je bil tudi zelo kontradiktoren. Po eni strani zato, ker je o spoštovanju demokracije predaval predstavnik konzervativnega in populističnega krila republikanske stranke, ki je spet prišla na oblast v ZDA, in ki zavrača demokratične institucije, ki ji stojijo na poti (sodišča) in ki zavrača mednarodni pravni red (od trgovinskega do pravnega). Po drugi strani pa zato, ker so še dober mesec dn nazaj evropski politiki zgolj sledili agendi, vrednotam in narativi prejšnje ameriške administracije. Bidnova administracija je bila prva, ki je obsodila predsedniške volitve v Romuniji, češ da je prihajalo do ruskega vmešavanja (kar se je izkazalo kot absolutna izmišljotina). In Bidnova administracija je bila tista, ki je prek USAID in NED plačevala tako velike mainstream medije kot “neodvisne” medije in “nevladne” organizacije, da so širili ameriško vladno narativo in vrednote, ki so tuje vsaj polovici Evropejcev.

In tretjič, Vanceov govor je seveda treba razumeti tudi v smislu discipliniranja evroskih politikov. EU je ameriška vazalna politična tvorba, evropsko zunanjo politiko so od ustanovitve evropske integracije vedno določali v Washingtonu. Vance je preprosto prišel jasno in glasno povedat, kakšna je nova ameriška narativa in da naj se evropski voditelji priklonijo novemu gospodarju. Evropski politiki bodo seveda nekaj časa kot brezglave kokoši kokodakali in skakali po zraku, na to pa – kaj? Se bodo priklonili novemu gospodarju? Ali pa bodo, kar si vsi, ki imamo Evropo res radi, najbolj želimo, začeli delati na tem, da Evropo tehnološko, gospodarsko in politično osamosvojijo od ZDA? Da končno naredijo suvereno Evropo.

Spodaj je dober komentar Thomasa Fazija.

___________

It’s easy to see why everyone in politics is talking about JD Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference yesterday. It was an astonishing speech, for several reasons, and one likely to be remembered as a watershed moment in post-World War II transatlantic relations.

In sharp contrast with the diplomatic platitudes often heard at these public events, the US Vice President launched a scathing and surprisingly blunt attack on Europe’s authoritarian and anti-democratic drift, accusing continental leaders of engaging in rampant censorship and even cancelling elections, as recently occurred in Romania. In his view, European governments do this in a desperate attempt to hold on to power and suppress the democratic backlash against their flawed policies — first and foremost mass immigration.

Vance directly called out the European Commission for threatening to shut down social media during civil unrest, and said he was shocked to hear a former European commissioner — he was referring to Thierry Breton — applaud Romania’s unprecedented decision to annul the elections following EU pressure over alleged Russian interference, and threaten to do the same in Germany should the AfD triumph.

In his sweeping attack, Vance didn’t exempt the UK either, harshly condemning the criminalisation of silent prayer as the sign of a broader tendency of European governments to encroach upon fundamental freedoms under the guise of social progressivism. He concluded by calling upon European leaders to “believe in democracy” — in other words, to step aside and allow a new generation of populists to take charge.

Vance’s comments have predictably sent shockwaves across Europe, sparking sharp criticism from mainstream leaders and pundits while earning enthusiastic praise from conservatives and populist sympathisers. Those of us who have long warned of Europe’s turn away from democracy will have felt a rush of schadenfreude at seeing these feckless leaders being scolded by their transatlantic master.

However, Vance’s remarks were also riddled with contradictions, not least because the United States has been an active participant — and often a guiding force — behind many of the very policies he condemned. While Vance’s attack on European authoritarianism is compelling, his omission of the US role in these developments is just as notable. The case of Romania illustrates this perfectly. As the entrepreneur and political commentator Arnaud Bertrand pointed out on X, it was the US State Department that first issued a statement expressing concern over Russian involvement, two days before the Romanian constitutional court annulled the election. American involvement also extends to the crucial role played by US-funded NGOs in orchestrating this unprecedented judicial intervention.

In short, the EU didn’t act independently: it followed the US’s lead. It’s therefore a bit rich for Vance to lecture the Europeans about democratic backsliding without acknowledging America’s instrumental role in setting the precedent. The same applies to censorship policies. Much of the EU’s approach to online censorship was developed in close coordination with American agencies and tech companies. The current Brussels content moderation framework is not a uniquely European creation — it was heavily influenced by American practices and pressures, particularly in the wake of US concerns over “disinformation”.

Indeed, as former US State Department official Mike Benz has highlighted, Nato — an organisation largely steered by Washington — has been instrumental in developing a the “anti-disinformation” framework that has significantly influenced global internet censorship policies. Vance completely ignores this reality as well, portraying Europe as the sole architect of policies that were, in fact, transatlantically coordinated  — if not led by the US.

More broadly, it is important to recognise that the feebleness of today’s European leadership is not incidental. It is, in part, the result of decades of US efforts to keep Europe in a state of strategic vassalage and subordination. Washington has consistently cultivated European politicians willing to prioritise American interests over those of their own nations and citizens. This broader context is also completely absent from Vance’s speech.

On top of this, for all the talk of the US “disengagement” from Europe, the reality is that the Trump administration is continuing the longstanding tradition of US meddling in European politics — evident in its explicit backing of populist parties such as the AfD. Regardless of whether one supports this agenda or not, the fact remains that it represents yet another form of external influence.

Vance’s remarks may not necessarily signal a break in US-European relations, but rather the beginning of a new phase of American ideological dominance. Instead of fostering European autonomy, this shift would simply mark the transition from the liberal-progressive hegemonic phase to a post-liberal one, with the US still dictating the terms.

Vir: Thomas Fazi, UnHerd