EU-US Trade Deal: Who Wins?
The EU backtracks: It will suspend tariff countermeasures against the U.S. for another six months
On July 27, an agreement on tariffs was reached between the two largest economic bodies in the world, the United States and the European Union. Together, they represent almost 44% of the global gross domestic product and, according to the European Commission president, conduct $1.7 billion of trade each year for a market of 800 million consumers.
For many European business sectors, it was long-awaited and crucial that a deal be struck before the Aug. 1 deadline set by President Donald Trump (which may explain why the meeting was held on a Sunday). The specter loomed that the U.S. would implement 30% tariffs across the board, while maintaining rates of 50% on European steel and aluminum. All this when, just months ago, the average import rate was 2.5%, and the U.S. acted as the most favorable customer for the majority of European goods.
It is important to remember that it was Trump who unleashed this global chaos, uncertainty and instability through his unilateral “trade war.” He has governed with a policy of “peace through strength,” a classic strategy in international politics holding that robust, credible military power is the easiest way to keep peace by dissuading potential adversaries from starting conflicts. The “peace through strength” doctrine has been applied by Trump to the commercial sector and this so-called trade war, with power, coercion and unilateralism featuring as political tools, not just in foreign and military policy (like recent attacks on Iran and threats to Greenland, Canada, Mexico and Ukraine) but commercially and in relation to U.S. allies, trade partners and competitors.
The announcement by the White House lauded a “historic” agreement between the U.S. and EU that “will provide Americans with unprecedented levels of market access to the European Union” — in essence, it is a historic victory for North Americans. On the other hand, the statement from European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen asserted that “today’s deal creates certainty in uncertain times. It delivers stability and predictability, for citizens and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic.” Basically, Europe has agreed to this deal (in peace, for peace) in order to create and maintain certainty and stability in the face of the uncertainty, unpredictability and chaos generated by the other side, the Trump administration.
The question is, can we describe this as an agreement when those signing it were forced to do so? Are we able to talk about the unity it has brought about if, among European countries, such unity does not exist? What kind of deal is this, if it leads to European media headlines labeling it the “abandonment,” “subversion,” “surrender” and “subordination” of Europe? How wonderful can this agreement be for the EU if we have to humiliate ourselves just to accept stability and fewer losses in export sectors in the short run, while faced with shameless arrogance and infantile geopolitics from President Trump in the long run?
Things are exactly as they seem. A random Sunday in July, at a Scottish golf course owned by a North American tycoon in charge of the U.S. presidency, is neither the time nor place for the European Commission president, who represents 450 million citizens, to be elegantly insulted by an agreement that only one side needed and wanted. All this without daring to offer even a single meaningful commercial alternative in return, from one power to another, for example in relation to the North American tech companies that dominate Europe. Dignity is a geopolitical superpower, one which President von der Leyen greatly lacked in Scotland this particular Sunday in July.
So, who wins? The answer is Trump, who is successfully subverting Europe without it even putting up a fight. Once again, the right course of action is as follows: less dependency, more Europe, no more United States.
On July 27, an agreement on tariffs was reached between the two largest economic bodies in the world, the United States and the European Union. Together, they represent almost 44% of the global gross domestic product and, according to the European Commission president, conduct $1.7 billion of trade each year for a market of 800 million consumers.
For many European business sectors, it was long-awaited and crucial that a deal be struck before the Aug. 1 deadline set by President Donald Trump (which may explain why the meeting was held on a Sunday). The specter loomed that the U.S. would implement 30% tariffs across the board, while maintaining rates of 50% on European steel and aluminum. All this when, just months ago, the average import rate was 2.5%, and the U.S. acted as the most favorable customer for the majority of European goods.
It is important to remember that it was Trump who unleashed this global chaos, uncertainty and instability through his unilateral “trade war.” He has governed with a policy of “peace through strength,” a classic strategy in international politics holding that robust, credible military power is the easiest way to keep peace by dissuading potential adversaries from starting conflicts. The “peace through strength” doctrine has been applied by Trump to the commercial sector and this so-called trade war, with power, coercion and unilateralism featuring as political tools, not just in foreign and military policy (like recent attacks on Iran and threats to Greenland, Canada, Mexico and Ukraine) but commercially and in relation to U.S. allies, trade partners and competitors.
The announcement by the White House lauded a “historic” agreement between the U.S. and EU that “will provide Americans with unprecedented levels of market access to the European Union” — in essence, it is a historic victory for North Americans. On the other hand, the statement from European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen asserted that “today’s deal creates certainty in uncertain times. It delivers stability and predictability, for citizens and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic.” Basically, Europe has agreed to this deal (in peace, for peace) in order to create and maintain certainty and stability in the face of the uncertainty, unpredictability and chaos generated by the other side, the Trump administration.
The question is, can we describe this as an agreement when those signing it were forced to do so? Are we able to talk about the unity it has brought about if, among European countries, such unity does not exist? What kind of deal is this, if it leads to European media headlines labeling it the “abandonment,” “subversion,” “surrender” and “subordination” of Europe? How wonderful can this agreement be for the EU if we have to humiliate ourselves just to accept stability and fewer losses in export sectors in the short run, while faced with shameless arrogance and infantile geopolitics from President Trump in the long run?
Things are exactly as they seem. A random Sunday in July, at a Scottish golf course owned by a North American tycoon in charge of the U.S. presidency, is neither the time nor place for the European Commission president, who represents 450 million citizens, to be elegantly insulted by an agreement that only one side needed and wanted. All this without daring to offer even a single meaningful commercial alternative in return, from one power to another, for example in relation to the North American tech companies that dominate Europe. Dignity is a geopolitical superpower, one which President von der Leyen greatly lacked in Scotland this particular Sunday in July.
So, who wins? The answer is Trump, who is successfully subverting Europe without it even putting up a fight. Once again, the right course of action is as follows: less dependency, more Europe, no more United States.
Previous article![]( "Bogusław Chrabota: Will the West Lose to Russia on Friday?")
Next article![]( "US Must Help Protect Taiwan’s Allies")