Canada and Europe

Liberal Democrats around the world cheered when Mark Carney and Ursula Von der Leyen announced that Canada would become an associate member of the European Union.

It was the first substantive circle in Carney’s Venn Diagram diplomacy.

And it made sense. Canada is a liberal democracy governed by the rule of law, international norms and respect for human rights and individual liberties. The EU is the same. The problem is that Europe is in danger of changing dramatically.

The populist right is on the rise across Europe and it is especially dangerous on Europe’s two key states—nuclear power France and economic engine Germany.

This week in elections in the German Lander of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania,  the Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) trounced the CDU—the senior partner in Germany’s ruling coalition. The AfD also did well in elections in Berlin and the latest opinion polls show it to be the most popular party with 27 percent of  the vote.

The AfD leadership has links with Neo-Nazis. It wants to end German support for Ukraine and improve relations with Russia. They argue that climate change is a hoax; are Euro-sceptics; believe that Germany’s Nazi past should be re-examined in a positive light; want to expel hundreds of thousands of immigrants and question the value of NATO and the rule of law that political leaders like Mark Carney are trying desperately to preserve.

Across the border in France far-right perennial presidential candidate Marine Le Pen mirrors many of the AfD’s policies with a French twist. Ms Le Pen is projected to win 34 percent of the vote in the  first round of presidential elections next April. This is far ahead of any of the other candidates and makes her the favourite to be the next occupant of the Elysee Palace.

The success of the populist right is mirrored in Italy where Giorgia Meloni governs with the Brothers of Italy. In Austria the Freedom Party is at 37 percent in the opinion polls. Vox in Spain is holding steady at 17-19 percent share of the projected vote; Geert Wilders PVV remains a force in the Netherlands and Sweden’s Sweden Democrats stand at 19  percent in the latest opinion polls. Britain’s Reform Party has dropped  from the lead position after allegations of illegal funding, but it still commands the support of 23 percent of the projected vote and is level with the conservatives who have been forced to move further right in response to the threat from Reform.

There is no single right-wing party platforms that transcends European borders. But there are strong similarities. Across Europe, populist parties of both left and right are challenging the established political consensus, particularly over immigration, national sovereignty and the powers of Brussels. On the right, a significant faction is also questioning Europe’s support for Ukraine and its confrontation with Russia—but the populist right is itself deeply divided over NATO, Russia and the future of the Atlantic alliance.

All of which threatens the cohesion of the European project with which Mark Carney wants to link. The problem is that the European project is the dream of a political elite. For years the public went along with the dream because it was producing prosperity. Now growth in the EU is stuck at 1.2 percent and unemployment in France is 8.3 percent and in the double figures for young people.

Carney wants Canada closer to Europe. The irony is that Europe itself may be moving away from the liberal consensus that made the relationship so attractive.

Greenland

Denmark wins. Greenland wins. NATO wins. Trump thinks—and says—he wins.

That is basically the diplomatic scorecard after months of Trumpian threats to annex, invade or purchase the misnamed Arctic island because, said the American president, the United States needed to militarise it for protection against the Chinese and Russians.

It is true that global warming has increased the strategic importance of Greenland. Also, both the Chinese and Russians have been making noises about investing in Danish territory and—the Russians in particular—have been rapidly increasing military operations in the Arctic.

Under a Danish-American treaty dating back to 1951, the United States has the right to base as many troops as it wants in Greenland. In fact, at the moment it has about 600 shivering soldiers on the island.

But that was not good enough for Donald Trump. He argued that America needed the incentive of ownership to defend Greenland. The Greenlanders, however, did not want to become American and the Danes refused to relinquish control. Hence the Trumpian threats, which strained the already strained US-European relationship and threatened the NATO alliance.

The result was several months of detailed negotiations in Washington and Copenhagen during which the mercurial president was steered away from the talks. Instead, the US delegation was led by the more even-tempered Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Danes by Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen. A third leg was added to the talks in the form of NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.

The end result was that Trump did not acquire Greenland and the Treaty of 1951 has basically been reiterated, with a few additional bells and whistles.

Under the treaty, the US is allowed to expand the existing Pituffik Space Base and build additional bases at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig. It also establishes mechanisms for more bases, and the US has confirmed flyover rights. All this was allowed under the 1951 Treaty, but the 2026 agreement makes it easier for the US to exercise its rights.

Not in the 1951 Treaty is Article 10, which says that non-NATO members cannot have “control”, “significant influence” or “access to non-public information” about particularly sensitive sectors or activities.

Article 10 is clearly aimed at the Chinese and Russians, but it also has implications for American foreign policy. Trump has repeatedly threatened to withdraw from NATO. If he does, under this agreement America would lose its special position as a NATO member in Greenland, including the rights and protections provided by the agreement.

The United States also has the right to be consulted about mining or oil exploration. But it does not have a veto. That continues to be held by the Greenlanders, and the treaty reaffirms their right to self-determination. It also reaffirms Denmark’s sovereignty over the island.

So, to sum up. NATO has tied America a bit closer to the defence of the alliance. Denmark has won diplomatic laurels for standing up to America and has secured a greater American role in the defence of Greenland. The Greenlanders have secured the right of self-determination and are firmly under the American defence umbrella. Donald Trump has secured the right to be consulted about strategically sensitive investment and to build more bases. The latter right he already had under the terms of an existing 75-year-old treaty.

Oil

Sailing across the Indian Ocean is the oil tanker Priamos. It is carrying 90,000 tonnes of increasingly valuable diesel oil from South Korea to Rotterdam and Britain.

The 12,000-mile journey of the Priamos is yet another consequence of the Iran War and Ukraine War which has forced European industries to become dependent on oil refineries on the other side of the world.

Pre-Iran War days, 40 percent of Europe’s refined oil – mainly diesel, jet fuel and marine fuel—came direct from refineries in the Middle East. That figure has now been cut by three-quarters.

Russia is also a major supplier of the world’s refined oil—15 percent of  the world’s total. Ukrainian attacks on Russian oil refineries have slashed that figure by 30 percent  from this time last year.

The result has pushed the price of diesel up to $6.51 a gallon in the US. In Europe the average price is a third higher at $9.63 a gallon. There have been similar price hikes for diesels refined cousins jet fuel and marine fuel.

The three fuels keep the world’s industrial and trade wheels turning. They power the tractors on the farms, aeroplanes, ships, diesel locomotives, lorries, emergency generators at hospitals, construction machinery and heating oil.

And because of the rapidly increasing price of fuels we have increasing prices.

But why South Korea? But because years ago, South Korea decided that if it could not be an oil producer it would become a  producer of refined oil products. It built giant refineries at Ulsan, Yeosu, Daesan and Incheon. South Korea became the oil refinery hub for the Asia-Pacific region.

Europe meanwhile continued to buy most of its refined oil products from the Middle  East and concentrated on developing more specialised refineries at home. The result was that – even with European refineries working at full capacity – Europe could not replace the millions of barrels of refined fuel when war forced their disappearance from the traditional suppliers. The market therefore began looking further afield and settled on South Korea whose refineries were able to take imported crude, turn it into diesel and send it halfway around the world at a profit.

That is why the 12,000-mile voyage of the Priamos matters. It is not simply an extraordinary journey by one tanker. It is evidence that two wars have begun to redraw the world’s refining map. Fuel that would once have been consumed in Asia is now being shipped to Europe, because the global oil industry can no longer rely on the old assumption that the fuel will be produced close to the people who need it

* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”