The Trump threat to Greenland may have receded for the moment but the episode is a clear warning to the European Union. It needs to ready itself for a no-holds-barred confrontation with the United States that will determine the future of the continent for generations to come.
Ten years ago, the EU faced an existential threat with the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the union. During the Brexit saga that followed, the member states came together in an unprecedented show of unity and, instead of falling apart as the Brexiteers had confidently expected, the union emerged stronger and more united.
The current threat from the US is even more dangerous. Trump has made no bones about his wish to destroy the EU and turn western Europe into a collection of vassal states that will do America’s bidding. He has encouraged anti-EU forces across the continent as part of his strategy.
Having spent the past year trying to cajole Trump with soft words, the leaders of the major European powers were shocked by his Greenland adventurism into taking a stand and threatening to retaliate if he launched a trade war in pursuit of his plan.
The US president’s sudden change of tack took some of the drama out of the emergency meeting of EU leaders in Brussels on Thursday night, but the threat remains and could be reactivated on a whim. His blustering performance at Davos showed the contempt in which he holds democratic Europe.
The EU response to Brexit provides a template for dealing with Trump in the years ahead. A unified approach is the first essential. The unity displayed during Brexit, and the support given to the Irish position, shocked the UK, which had high hopes that a divide and conquer strategy would work.
Instead the way the EU held together, despite the divergent interests of some member states, left the UK with very few bargaining chips and ultimately it had to accept a deal on terms largely dictated by Brussels.
As far as Ireland is concerned, we appear utterly unprepared for the kind of decisions that face us in the years ahead. The Government’s opposition to the Mercosur trade deal has further undermined our credibility, already wafer thin because of our freeloading on defence
The tactics deployed during the Brexit saga were also superb. Under the unruffled leadership of Michel Barnier EU negotiators refused to be provoked by UK bluster and instead drowned the British side in a sea of carefully worked out position papers on every conceivable aspect of a potential deal.
The US is clearly a more formidable power than the UK but the EU has some serious firepower at its disposal. With a wealthy population of 450 million it is the most attractive market on the globe and is in a strong position to fight any trade war.
The European Commission has devised a powerful trade weapon, the anti-coercion instrument, to deal with potentially hostile countries. The so-called trade bazooka was devised in 2023 to prevent China blackmailing the EU into doing its bidding.
[ Donald Trump’s claim that he won’t take Greenland by force is not reassuringOpens in new window ]
The prospect of deploying it against the US was not considered back then, but it has come on to the agenda in recent weeks as a last resort. The instrument would have serious consequences for American tech companies operating in the EU.
It’s a long time since Theodore Roosevelt defined the US approach to international relations as being to “speak softly and carry a big stick”. The EU tends to speak softly as a matter of course but it needs to let the Americans know that it is prepared to use a big stick in an emergency.
There is no escaping the fact that over the past 12 months Trump has changed the basis of the world order. The only thing he understands, as China has shown, is the prospect of a confrontation which will do serious damage to US interests.
In a brilliant and inspirational speech in Davos, Canadian prime minister Mark Carney spelled out the options now facing most countries of the world. He argued that the middle powers such as Canada and the EU must join with others and act together “because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu”.
He made the point that negotiating bilaterally with a hegemon resulted only in a competition to be the most accommodating. “In a world of great power rivalry the countries in between have a choice: compete with each other for favour, or combine to create a third path with impact.”
As far as Ireland is concerned, we appear utterly unprepared for the kind of decisions that face us in the years ahead. The Government’s opposition to the Mercosur trade deal has further undermined our credibility, already wafer thin because of our freeloading on defence.
If Mercosur required a serious sacrifice from Ireland on behalf of the EU as a whole, there might have been some rationale for the Government’s position. But as the addition of another 300 million South Americans to the EU free-trade area is actually in this country’s interests, our opposition to it is plainly absurd.
The subjugation of national self-interest to lobbying from the beef industry, which may or may not be impacted by Mercosur, does not augur well for the kind of decisions the Government will face in the coming years.