US cognitive warfare against the European Union

The rift between the United States and the European Union is far from a new development; rather, it is a longstanding tension that has existed for decades. William Jefferson Clinton, born one year after the end of WWII, with his background as a Rhodes Scholar, was perhaps the last American president to enjoy genuine intellectual rapport with his European colleagues. His administration, while not without its differences with Europe, largely operated within a framework of shared values and mutual respect.

The ideological divide between the two transatlantic powers has ebbed and flowed, occasionally surfacing but often remaining under the surface. It was in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks that this divide became particularly evident. The American response to the tragedy and its subsequent foreign policy decisions highlighted a deepening cultural and political rift between the US and Europe. As the US forged ahead with its “War on Terror", European leaders, many of whom were skeptical of the military response, found themselves at odds with Washington. The phrase coined by Robert Kagan, “America is from Mars, and Europe is from Venus’’ became a common, if somewhat tongue-in-cheek, reflection of the growing ideological gap between the US and the EU.

The shift in American policy under the Trump administration has transformed what was once disagreements on certain policies into something far more radical: a manifestation of cognitive hostility towards the European Union itself. To continue the Mars/Venus metaphor, Mars is attempting to pull Venus out of her sphere.

Cognitive warfare, which refers to the deliberate undermining of intellectual or ideological values through rhetoric or action, is particularly fitting when assessing the behavior of American politicians in recent weeks. When it comes to reaching peace in Ukraine, the US and the EU have different approaches. It is not purely cognitive hostility, although by sidelining Brussels, the US hopes to demonstrate its irrelevance.

One of the most glaring examples of intellectual aggression occurred during Vice President JD Vance’s participation in the Munich Security Conference. His speech not only symbolized an affront to European political sensibilities but also highlighted the increasing disregard for Europe’s history, culture and values. His meeting with the leader of Germany’s far-right party on that occasion, just days before the country’s elections, exemplified a form of intellectual meddling that was particularly troubling.

Vance’s actions were not only politically charged but displayed a fundamental ignorance of the European political landscape. Germany, a nation that has undergone a profound transformation since the fall of Nazism, is deeply sensitive to issues surrounding nationalism and far-right politics. The idea that a sitting US Vice President would engage with such a movement, without fully grasping the political and historical context of post-World War II Germany is a testament to the broader ignorance at play.

The words of Willy Brandt (1913-1992) come to mind: “A good German cannot be a nationalist. A good German knows that he cannot refuse a European calling. Through Europe, Germany returns to itself and to the constructive forces of its history. Our Europe, born of the experience of suffering and failure, is the imperative mission of reason’’. Should Vance be familiar with the vision of the German statesman, would he dare to oppose it? Perhaps, but Vance is neither German nor European.

His behavior was not an isolated incident, nor was it a departure from the broader approach of the Trump administration. A consistent pattern has emerged: undermining the European Union, challenging multilateralism and prioritizing narrow national interests over collective global concerns. Trump's “America First’’ mantra is a rallying cry for a form of nationalism that mirrors the very forces of nationalism and imperialism that led to the devastation of two World Wars. In this worldview, Europe’s post-war integration, driven by a commitment to diplomacy, peace, and cooperation, is seen as an inconvenience.

In a sense, what the European Union represents, a transfer of sovereignty and an effort to make nationalism, rather than nations, obsolete, is exactly what Trump opposes. However, Europeans recognize that the EU is their path to peace, and while it is far from perfect, they believe it can be reformed, not destroyed. Beyond Europe, the EU has inspired other regional integration efforts, such as ASEAN and the African Union, which are contributing to the creation of building blocks for multilateral global governance. By undermining the EU, one weakens multilateral structures that have been carefully built over eight decades since WWII. At least Trump's hyper-nationalistic vision of the world offers consistency. It is, however, dangerous and represents a regression into the 19th century—the century of nationalism.

In light of these developments, the EU must contend with a twofold challenge: first, it must resist the growing intellectual hostility emanating from the US, and second, it must find a way to protect its own values and interests in an increasingly divided world. While the European Union is not without resources to confront this intellectual aggression, the real test lies in its political will.

At this point, all indications suggest that China will not adopt the Trump-era intellectual hostility towards the EU. It is hoped that European leaders will recognize this and work to strengthen Sino-European synergies, keeping the best interests of humanity in mind.

For the European Union, the challenge is not just political but intellectual. The growing divide between the US and Europe reflects deeper philosophical differences about the role of nations and the future of globalization.

As the US retreats into a more nationalistic worldview, Europe must remain steadfast in its commitment to the ideals that have helped shape its post-war recovery and the creation of the European Union. Only through this commitment to shared values can Europe hope to navigate the growing intellectual hostility that is now emanating from Washington.

David Gosset is the founder of the China-Europe-America Global Initiative. He is the editor of China and the World in three volumes and the creator of the Inspiring Series, a collection of books that aims to introduce China to the world. 

The views don't necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.