The customs tariff agreement recently signed between the United States of Donald Trump and the European Union continues to cause stir on the old continent. Trap or less evil? It is only the new chapter of a strategy of confrontation in check for Brussels, which attempts to impose views which no one seems to want and which in the balance of power must systematically comply. It is a dangerous game that questions the future of Europe in an increasingly tense world between great powers, and which could see the old continent gradually withdraw from the major geopolitical and economic issues.
Considered by some as the scam of the century, with a rate of 15 % imposed on all European products intended for the United States, the agreement is defended by those which consider in part in part that one could have lost much more by resisting and reach rates of 30 % taxation. Of course, the EU undertakes to invest a lot across the Atlantic, but sincerely: does it still have the means to oppose the rest of the world to exist?
Europe cannot exist permanently in a multipolar world by being content to say “no” to its main partners
In a few years, the European Union has deeply reconfigured its relations with the great world powers, to the point of finding itself today in a posture that is both isolated and vulnerable. The energy break with Russia since 2022, increasing trade tensions with China and the European Commission’s desire to sanction Beijing, as well as persistent disagreements with the United States on industrial and climatic issues, draw the contours of a continent that struggles to define a coherent strategy, other than confrontation.
However, Europe cannot exist permanently in a multipolar world by contenting itself with saying “no” to its main partners. To criticize the American agreement is not to want to see that the balance of power is not at all in favor of the old continent and that Ulula von der Leyen probably did what she could. Some of course consider that it is the new act of demonstration of total submission to the United States. Unfortunately only have the choice?
The Ukraine detonator
The war in Ukraine served as a brutal trigger. By almost completely cutting its energy links with Russia – which represented more than 40 % of its imports of gas in 2021 -, the Union took up the challenge of diversification, at the cost of a major inflationary shock and a loss of industrial competitiveness. Alternatives, such as American LNG or Algerian gas, remain more expensive, and above all unstable.
Qatari gas is a safe bet, even if recently Doha has also threatened to cut the tap, while Europe wants to impose new standards for the supply chain. New rules that may ultimately make new pitfalls to Europe. What will we do in terms of sovereignty once angry with everyone? We must defend our values certainly, but we must also guarantee our survival. This strategic divorce with Moscow, if it was necessary for an ethical and political level, revealed to what extent Europe had been dependent on partners it considered essential, without thinking in the long term.
China, the big stranger
At the same time, relations with China deteriorate. The European Commission is increasing surveys for anti -competitive practices, especially in the electric vehicle and solar panels sectors, denouncing a systemic “dumping”. Beijing, for its part, agitates the threat of economic reprisals. However, China has become the first trading partner in Europe: to break or weaken this strategic link, without a credible spare solution, amounts to further weakening European industry, already under pressure. Once again, what will we do concretely without China and what alternative do we have faced with the industrial sinking that we live?
This triple friction-Russia, China, United States-places Europe in a paradoxical position: it legitimately defends its values and its interests, but seems to be locked in a purely reactive strategy. It acts as a moral pole, but without sufficient economic base or real strategic autonomy. However, in a world dominated by affirmative powers, often brutal in the defense of their interests, Europe cannot be defined only by the protest.
Europe is perceived today as a real administrative, fiscal and legal quagmire
The alternative does not go through submission, but through the construction of a real geoeconomic project which is attractive for the rest of the world. However, Europe is perceived today as a real administrative, fiscal and legal quagmire. This implies investing massively in its industrial, energy and technological capacities, while rethinking its alliances pragmaticly. Europe has resources, know-how and human capital to weigh, but it must accept to be more offensive, more united and above all less naive and lessons.
* Sébastien Boussois is a doctor of political science, researcher Arab and geopolitical world, teacher in international relations at IHECS (Brussels), scientific collaborator at CNAM Paris (Defense Security Team), to the Nordic Center for Conflict Transformation (NCCT Stockholm) and at the Geneva Strategic Observatory.
