STATEMENT: Europe must stand up to Trump and shape the future

Niccolo Milanese

The President of the United States of America has threatened to impose 10% trade tariffs on six EU countries, the UK and Norway because they refuse to recognize the demand of Donald Trump to take ownership of Greenland. The European Union must activate the Anti-Coercion instrument immediately: the people of Greenland are EU citizens, and Greenland is a part of Denmark. The two other non-EU countries concerned must join in the effort to show resolute unity on a matter of principle as well as a matter of common European security. 

The instrument was conceived to protect the EU and its member states from third countries’ economic coercion and introduced at the end of 2023. There could not be a clearer case of the use of economic policy for coercion. If the EU does not use it now in the face of US threats, it will not be able to use it as a credible instrument to stand up to any future coercion from any other country, whether it is Russia, China or somewhere else.

Some diplomats have been arguing that the EU should wait to see if Trump actually does impose the tariffs at the beginning of February before activating the instrument. 

No. 

Firstly, the scope of the instrument is clear: 

‘Under the regulation, ‘economic coercion’ refers to a situation whereby a third country seeks to pressure the European Union or an EU Member State into making a particular choice by applying, or threatening to apply, measures affecting trade or investment.’

Protecting against coercion, European Commission

This is as it should be. Announcements of economic policy shape economic behaviour in advance of being implemented. Threatening tariffs to coerce countries into agreeing to USA policies is nothing new in this Presidency, the US president has already tried this trick on the whole world. The EU was too weak and fearful last summer when it came to the Thurnbury agreement on a trade deal (which the EU must also not advance on). Now like a mafia boss Trump is exploiting weakness to push for more: the EU must stand up to this firmly and clearly.

Secondly, the instrument itself foresees several steps until response action is taken, including the European Commission entering into negotiations with the third country. Not activating the instrument in the name of waiting to see what happens when EU countries meet Trump in Davos or trying to deescalate by not retaliating are getting things completely the wrong way around. It is built into the EU to seek dialogue and negotiation, where the EU lacks credibility is that it will take sufficiently powerful action. This is what Trump is relentlessly and successfully exploiting. Only by showing that the EU is willing to defend itself will it be able to negotiate.

There will be those that continue to say all relations with the United States of America are secondary to continued USA support for Ukraine. If NATO is turned into a protection racket, in which in order to benefit from the protection of the most powerful member everyone else has to bend to its will, then it is not the kind of club anyone would willingly want to be a member of and many will justifiably seek ways of leaving. And at this point a clear eyed assessment of how much support the USA is really giving to Ukraine has to acknowledge that in monetary and military terms this is declining rapidly. The European Union already has no choice but to step up its support: breaking out of American tutelage which has transformed into extorsion only provides further reason.

If it can for once project power this time, in the face of such brazen and explicit attempts to undermine, decredibilise and divide it, this could be the beginning of the EU breaking out of its constant cycle of reaction, and making an attempt to shape the future rather than react to other people. It should make a clear offer for Greenland to become a full member of the EU (rather than having an autonomous status), to be voted on by Greenlanders themselves; it should accelerate Ukrainian accession and accession of all the Balkans states. It should bring together all those countries across the world that believe in international law, from Brazil to South Africa to Taiwan, to seek joint proposals for addressing conflicts from Palestine to Ukraine to the situation in Venezuela. Sometimes theorists call this ‘middle power diplomacy’. That is a depreciating name, in today’s world it would be better called ‘standing up for international law and human rights’. It is what Europe claims it is for, now it has to show it.