History matters, except to politicians.
Losing a couple of world wars has not changed the view of important German politicians concerning their ability to push around their former adversary, Great Britain. It seems that British voters have taken the opportunity of a referendum—you know, the process by which voters get to say what they really, really think about an issue—to leave Germany and its fellow members of the European Union in favor of the broad sunlit uplands of a less regulated economic future. But in a reversal of the roles played at Versailles almost a century ago, Germany is demanding reparations. Or alimony.
Wolfgang Schäuble, Germany’s finance minister, says that Britain will remain bound by rules governing what incentives the U.K. might offer to foreign investors, and that Britain will have to continue paying into EU coffers until 2030. He did not provide Britain with the address to which to send its payments, but presumably the cheques will go to help support the EU bureaucracy, the cost of which is one reason Britain wants no more of the EU. France, not famous for its historic ability to stand against Germany unaided by Britain and others, is on Schäuble’s side.
Schäuble is not the only politician unaware of the historic memories his statements might bring to some minds. Our very own President Obama, who insists the Democrats’ loss of perhaps one thousand federal and state-wide seats during his tenure had nothing to do with him, has some advice for his successor, Donald Trump. Trump must “stand up” to Russia when it deviates from international “values and norms” rather than striking “convenient deals” with Vladimir Putin, Obama says. This from the man who watched as Russia re-established itself as a power in the Middle East by joining Syria in the bombing of schools and hospitals, and who dithered while Bashar al-Assad strode across the Obama red line to use chemical weapons. And who denied Ukraine defensive weapons with which to fend off a Russian invasion. And who … well, you get the idea. It seems a tad arrogant for a president who is handing his successor wars in Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Ukraine, a nuclear-armed North Korea, and a Russia threatening its neighbors, among other ills, to accompany that legacy with advice about maintaining international “values and norms.”
Finally, we have the President of the Philippines, one Rodrigo Duterte, another leader ignorant of his nation’s history, or who feels we have not done enough for it lately. You remember the Philippines, the island nation to which General Douglas MacArthur famously promised to return—and did. The island on which tens of thousands of Americans died or were wounded, first in its defense, later in its liberation. “Just because it’s America, doesn’t mean it’s good,” said Duterte as he “separated” from America. “I can always go to China,” he claims, proving bin Laden was right when he said, “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they will naturally want to side with the strong horse.” Duterte is in search of a new world order. “If China and Russia would decide to create a new order, I will be the first to join.”
Duterte has canceled joint military exercises with the United States and wants American troops out of the Philippines within two years, including our drones operating against Islamic militants in his country. Trump and his new security team might decide not to wait that long, reckoning that any loss in our own capability in the region would be offset by demonstrating to other countries that there are limits to the abuse we are willing to take from former allies for whom history began only recently. Or Trump, who uses language more direct than references to “international values and norms,” might wonder aloud in a negotiating session what would happen to the Philippine economy were we to put a halt to the flow of remittances sent home by Filipino workers here: that cash flow comes to an estimated 5 percent of the nation’s GDP.
