Ursula Von Der Leyen Honored with Award for Contributions to European Unity
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, right, receives the Charlemagne Prize by Juergen Linden, left, Chairman of the Charlemagne Prize Board of Directors, in Aachen, Germany, Thursday, May 29, 2025.
BERLIN (AP) — European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen received the International Charlemagne Prize, an annual award for contributions to European unity, on Thursday as the 27-nation bloc confronts Russia's war against Ukraine, the Trump administration's trade war and security issues across the continent.
The European Union's most high-profile political figure, von der Leyen was called 'the embodiment of the European spirit' by King Felipe VI of Spain during Thursday's ceremony in Aachen, Germany.
Last year, European Parliament lawmakers reelected her to a second five-year term as president of the EU's powerful executive arm.
The commission proposes legislation for the EU's 27 member countries — and its 450 million people — and ensures that the rules governing the world's biggest trading bloc are respected. It's made up of a College of Commissioners with a range of portfolios similar to those of government ministers, including agriculture, economic, competition, security and migration policy.
After coming to office in 2019, von der Leyen led the EU drive to secure COVID-19 vaccines and has been a major supporter of Ukraine in its war against Russia. With governments weakened in France and Germany at the time, she sought to play a greater role in the bloc's affairs.
The Trump administration and Europe
The Spanish king and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who also attended Thursday's ceremony, pushed for stronger European defense as U.S. President Donald Trump threatens to pull back America's protection commitments to the continent, upending the post-World War II order that has formed the basis for global stability and security.
'A clear message is coming out of Washington: Europeans ought to do more to provide for the defense of their own continent,' Felipe said. 'We should not underestimate how consequential this message is. There are few alive today that have lived in a Europe where the U.S., the United States, was not the dominant security provider.'
Merz, whose election earlier this month was seen as a reemergence of Germany's status as a diplomatic and economic heavyweight, brought up U.S. Vice President JD Vance's comments at the Munich Security Conference earlier this year. Vance, 'in his own very special way,' confronted what Europeans stand for, Merz said.
Vance at the time complained about the state of democracy and free speech in Europe, and lambasted German political parties — days before a national election — for their so-called 'firewall' against working with far-right parties.
'We actually stand for what we have been able to develop, to design, what we have actually fought for during centuries — and despite many backlashes and disasters — that we actually defend what is dear to us and important: freedom and democracy,' Merz said.
Both leaders, as well as von der Leyen, emphasized the importance of responding to Trump's changing tariff policies with a single voice.
'We will never be a protectionist continent,' von der Leyen said.
Recalling Anne Frank
The International Charlemagne Prize was first awarded in 1950 in Aachen. Charlemagne, considered the first unifier of Europe, had his favorite palace in the western German city in the late eighth century.
Aachen, on the Dutch border, is also famous as the birthplace of teenage diarist Anne Frank's mother, Edith Holländer. She and Otto Frank married in Aachen's synagogue, which was destroyed during the Kristallnacht — or the 'Night of Broken Glass' — in 1938 in which the Nazis terrorized Jews throughout Germany and Austria.
The Frank family later left Germany upon Adolf Hitler's rise to power and eventually went into hiding in 1942 in a secret annex in the Nazi-occupied Netherlands. They were later sent to concentration camps, where all but Otto Frank died.
Anne Frank's world-famous diary was published after the end of World War II.
In her speech Thursday, von der Leyen spoke about the Frank family, the synagogue and the city's importance to Europe's history — and its future.
'Today in Aachen, there's a new synagogue,' von der Leyen said. 'A symbol of rebirth, of resurrection, but also of remembrance. A painful reminder for Europe to be alert and withstand all those who sow hatred and want to divide our society.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Diplomat
4 hours ago
- The Diplomat
Is the US About to Establish a Military Base in Thailand?
In my April column for The Diplomat, I argued that Thailand has downplayed the defense dimension in its tariff negotiations with the United States, so as to dodge tough questions of strategic alignment. And so, 'the moment defense becomes overt in talks with Trump could be the moment Thailand finds itself dangerously cornered.' That gloomy reality is materializing, with Thailand's tariff rate remaining unaltered at 36 percent despite the Pheu Thai government having spent 97 million baht ($2.99 million) on lobbyists, and the state-owned energy conglomerate PTT Group having inked a 20-year agreement with Glenfarne Alaska LNG to import 2 million metric tons of liquefied natural gas annually. Murmurs about security-related concessions are growing louder. But, contrary to my anticipation of arms deals, the buzz centers around the establishment of a U.S. base within the Phang Nga Naval Base on Thailand's southwestern coast. That the buzz refuses to fade regardless of repeated denials from Thai officials reflects two contradictory trends, which are sharpened by today's U.S.-China showdown. On the question of the U.S. basing rights in Thailand, American persistence competes with unyielding Thai resistance. Thailand's stance is not only shaped by its pursuit of strategic equilibrium, but also by its first-hand experience. The heyday of the Thailand-U.S. alliance during the Vietnam War saw a massive American military stationing across seven key bases on Thai soil. The number of U.S. troops in Thailand was 46,300 in 1969, and 27,000 in 1975, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. While the gradual troop reduction was America's doing, the catalyst for the Thai government to formally request that U.S. combat forces pack up and leave was domestic discontent. The problems around hosting the garrisoned presence of another nation are succinctly captured by the late Thanat Khoman, Thailand's esteemed diplomat and one of ASEAN's founding fathers. These include the erosion of sovereignty, direct or indirect interference in domestic politics, and the disruption of social stability, from psychological unease to the economic shocks triggered by sudden inflows and pullouts of foreign funds. Because these problems are structural in nature, even the closest, friendliest ally with shared objectives can still leave a negative footprint. One might assert further that the closer the alliance, the easier it is to overlook the problems for the host country, particularly the psychological imprint. A case in point is the U.S. deployment of the chemical herbicide Agent Orange to destroy jungle cover and crops in Vietnam. Its long-lasting health implications for the Vietnamese population and American veterans are well-recognized, rightfully so. Presumed exposure among U.S. veterans stationed in Thailand are also acknowledged. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs specifically acknowledges compensation consideration for veterans serving 'on or near the perimeters' of U.S. bases in Thailand between 1961 and 1975, which suggests that Thai civilians living around those bases should not be ignored in the broader discourse. Yet, to date, there appears to be no real policy or research focused on the possible exposure of Thai civilians. Since the relatively smooth U.S. withdrawal in 1976, Thailand has not hosted a permanent American or other foreign military presence. All U.S. military activities in Thailand – while still substantial, with greater depth and wider scope than Thailand's military engagement with other nations – are now joint or rotational on a case-by-case basis. Uncle Sam has not been discouraged, though, and the prospect of American basing at Thailand's U-Tapao air base is a recurring discussion. An offshore military base in Thai waters is another area of U.S. interest. The request to establish one reportedly dates back to 1997. The reason for the U.S. interest is simple: Thailand's ideal geographical location. A gateway to mainland Southeast Asia, Thailand is a springboard for U.S. power projection into continental Asia, which is currently lacking. Given that U.S. ground-based cruise and ballistic missiles have a reported range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, shots fired at maximum capacity from central or eastern Thailand could threaten all of China's southern provinces (Yunnan, Guangxi, and Guangdong) and the western Xinjiang Region. Furthermore, America's maritime dominance would be underpinned by Thailand's close proximity to both the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean. The rumored U.S. push to secure an institutionalized foothold on Thailand's southwestern coast is most straightforwardly understood in the context of the intensifying competition in the Indian Ocean. The regional littoral power India, and distant powers China and Russia, are all ramping up their naval presence – the latter two in apparent accordance with the classic Mahanian thinking on sea power. Although America has a forward naval presence on Diego Garcia, it is quite a distance away. American access to Singapore, meanwhile, is limited and takes place on a rotational basis under an agreement that runs through 2035. Through Thailand's Phang Nga Naval Base, then, the U.S. would have a firmer hold near the Andaman Sea and the Bay of Bengal. If ever greenlit, a formalized U.S. access to Phang Nga would likely follow the Singapore model. When it comes to Phang Nga, however, Thailand's apprehension goes beyond geopolitical balance and deep-seated sensitivities. Phang Nga is effectively a sister province of Phuket, bound by geographical proximity and a shared economic trajectory, from tin mining in the past to today's tourism. Phang Nga's internationally known resort zone, Khao Lak, is just a 30-minute drive away from the naval base in question. It must also be highlighted that Phang Nga, Phuket, and another neighboring province, Krabi, are undergoing a wellness-focused transformation under the national development agenda. An established foreign military presence in the area is at odds with that development priority. To cite Thanat Khoman once again, 'the criteria for allowing foreign forces to remain should rest on the national interests of the host country, or at least on the concord between the former and those of the foreign party.' The answer to the first criterion is clear, but the second one is murky considering that Thailand remains a formal U.S. ally. Perhaps unnoticed by many, there exists no mutual defense treaty between Bangkok and Washington. Instead, the Thai-U.S. defense alliance draws symbolic significance from the 1954 Manila Pact, which created the now-defunct Southeast Asia Treaty Organization. The alliance is reinforced by subsequent bilateral documents: the 1962 Thanat-Rusk communiqué, the Joint Vision Statements of 2012 and 2020, and the 2022 United States-Thailand Communiqué on Strategic Alliance and Partnership. None of these has binding provisions for basing rights. Ultimately, there is neither legal compulsion nor interest – and thus no political will – on Thailand's part to host an institutionalized U.S. military presence. More viable and desirable ways to boost the Thailand-U.S. alliance would be to expand military education and training, to co-develop or support indigenous defense capabilities, and to focus on strengthening a number of existing joint exercises, whether in bilateral or multilateral formats. The fact that there is no good outcome for Thailand on the trade front makes it even more unlikely that the ruling government would concede basing rights as part of its negotiations with the U.S. While a 36 percent tariff stands to devastate Thai exports and growth rate, Thailand offering zero tariffs on U.S. imports risks opening the floodgates to overwhelming inflows of American goods. This, combined with the already high influx of Chinese goods, will kill Thai-made products. The trickier business is determining the position of the Trump administration, which, on the one hand, has been relentless in bending others to its will. On the other hand, however, setting up a new base in Thailand seems to go against the administration's cost-saving agenda, especially as Trump himself has shown little interest in Southeast Asia. All things considered, an American base in Thailand remains a distant prospect.
The Mainichi
5 hours ago
- The Mainichi
Business leaders laud Japan-US trade deal, admit ongoing challenges
TOKYO (Kyodo) -- Japanese business leaders on Wednesday praised the government for reaching a trade deal with the United States under which tariff rates on Japanese cars and other products will be set at 15 percent, while acknowledging it will still cause hardship for firms. "The persistent negotiations paid off," Yoshinobu Tsutsui, chairman of the Japanese Business Federation, the country's most powerful business lobby also known as Keidanren, told reporters, adding his group has "high regard" for the outcome. The tariffs under the deal, which was first announced by U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday, are lower than initially proposed. They were agreed before an Aug. 1 deadline set by the United States to impose a "reciprocal" 25 percent tariff on Japanese goods. "I have yet to look into the details, but would like to provide support (from Keidanren) on multiple fronts," Tsutsui said. While some companies have expressed hope that the potential adverse effects of the levies would be eased, others said challenges were likely to persist as they nevertheless remained high. "The evasion of even higher tariffs across the board may act as a crucial breakwater for companies," said Takeshi Niinami, chairman of the Japan Association of Corporate Executives. "We must work toward rebuilding a free-trade system," he added, also warning of the spread of the "America First" approach. While saying the deal helped remove U.S. tariff uncertainties, Ken Kobayashi, chairman of the Japan Chamber of Commerce and Industry, called the 15 percent tariffs "regrettable." "The effects of this new burden of tariffs will hit not just exporter firms, but also those that shoulder the domestic supply chain and are largely made up of small and medium-sized firms that are responsible for supplying parts and logistics," he said in a statement. The Trump administration's 25 percent additional auto tariff was one of the biggest sticking points in the trade talks. Combined with the 2.5 percent rate already in place, a total tariff of 27.5 percent was imposed on imported passenger vehicles in April. Following the latest announcement, a source from a major automaker expressed dismay at the deal, noting tariffs prior to Trump's inauguration had stood at just 2.5 percent. Meanwhile, a source from an electronics manufacturer noted that "compared with the 25 percent tariff that was slated to hit on Aug. 1, 15 percent is slightly better."
NHK
5 hours ago
- NHK
US, Philippines reach trade deal with 19% tariff on Philippine exports
The United States and the Philippines reached a trade deal after their leaders met in Washington on Tuesday. It includes major concessions by Manila. US President Donald Trump shared details of the agreement on social media. He said the Philippines will open its market to the US and impose no tariffs. Meanwhile, there will be a 19 percent tariff on Philippine exports to America. Trump also said they will work together militarily. Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. told reporters he had to make concessions. These include scrapping tariffs on US automobiles and increasing imports of soy, wheat and pharmaceutical products from the country. President Marcos said they tried very hard to see what they could do. He added, "That's part of the new regime that we will be following in terms of trade with the United States." But Marcos also emphasized that he managed to confirm cooperation on security with Washington. The Philippines has been locked in a territorial dispute with Beijing in the South China Sea. "Our strongest, closest, most reliable ally has always been the United States," he said during the meeting. The US State Department later announced at least 60 million dollars in foreign assistance funding to support energy, maritime, and economic growth programs in the Philippines.
