A castle or merely a vassal

he US President Donald Trump’s weaponisation of tariffs forced most countries, barring China or Brazil, to give in to the threats without resistance. But it was the European Union’s (EU) capitulation that shocked the world. The transatlantic partnership that defines the relation between the US and Europe has gone through periods of difficulties and deviations in the past. But economic and political dependency on each other has allowed the partnership to survive.

Excessively, after the tariff acceptance, questions were raised whether it has become one-sided. When trade negotiations began between the two sides, the EU asserted it would match the US tariff with a counter-tariff. But after Trump halved it from 30 per cent to 15 per cent, the EU accepted the terms, and offered hefty concessions. Brussel’s actions surprised observers since the EU is not an economic dwarf. It is a leading trade power, and America’s leading trade partner and supplier. Nearly 20 per cent of America’s imports come from Europe. The US manufacturing is dependent on Europe. EU is an equal economic partner of the US.

Harvard professor of international political economy, Dani Rodrik, expressed his extreme feelings when he said that the EU’s reaction has “perhaps been the greatest disappointment.” Other concurred. The EU has “abandoned the principles of multilateralism that have long guided global trade,” pointed out Alberto Alemanno, professor of European Union law, HEC Paris.

The European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, defended the stance. She saw the trade deal as a major diplomatic breakthrough after months of negotiations. It steadied the transatlantic partnership, which is an important bilateral trade and investment relationship in the world. She claimed the agreement restored stability and predictability for citizens and businesses.

However, Rodrik felt that Europe’s ambitions were narrowly parochial, but in folding to Trump, it was not even clear that it served its immediate interests. The agreement left 50 per cent duties on European exports of steel and aluminium, which the US assumes to be sensitive items. Europe committed to ridiculously high levels of energy imports ($750 billion over three years) from the US. It agreed to invest $600 billion in American plants.

“The EU is ultimately driven by the fear of losing US protection in today’s dangerous geopolitical context,” said Zaki Laidi, a professor of international relations at France’s Science Po. He pointed out that the implication was that any form of continued transatlantic alignment, no matter how humiliating, was preferable to an uncertain independence for the EU.

Despite its collective posture, NATO has remained US-led and totally dependent on the United States. This is because even after years of debates and discussions, the EU has not been able to reach a consensus among its members for a common European security policy. It is reluctant to increase its defence budget to take control of NATO. A complacency has developed among the European members in NATO to continue to depend on America.

“Europe’s subordination reflects and reinforces the continent’s dependence on US power,” said Alemanno. He pointed out that Europe’s failure to meet NATO’s defence-spending targets has made them content to shelter under the US nuclear umbrella. The defence, trade and energy dependency has left Europe “in a state of permanent vassalisation.” This is great news for Trump, but bad one for most of the other global leaders.