World News
The Union’s capitulation to Donald Trump shows who the US’s only serious rival is
The British journalist recalls the international conflict triggered by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal in July 1956.
“The Suez crisis was a humiliating moment of truth for Britain. Faced with relentless opposition from the US, Anthony Eden’s government was forced to abandon military action in Egypt. The capitulation to American pressure was an acknowledgment of Britain’s diminished status on the world stage,” he writes.
Although the trade agreement between Washington and Brussels lacks the drama of sending troops to recapture one of the world’s most important waterways, it is nonetheless the “Suez moment for the EU.”
A trade war has been avoided, but the EU will pay for access to the US market
The EU has made all the concessions and got nothing in return, writes the economic journalist, explaining that most European goods exported to the US will be subject to a 15% tariff, while the already low tariffs on US goods entering the EU will be completely eliminated. In practice, says Larry Elliot, European companies have had to accept higher costs as the price for access to the world’s largest market.
The EU has also committed to investing $600 billion in the US, purchasing $750 billion worth of fossil fuels in the long term, and buying more US military equipment. Plans for an EU tax on digital services, which would have affected US tech giants, had already been abandoned.
As far as financial markets are concerned, the agreement was a relief because it removed the threat of a mutual trade war. According to Larry Elliot, it is not that economists believe tariffs will be beneficial for the global economy, but rather that they feared an even worse outcome. EU trade negotiators were of the same opinion. For Brussels, any agreement was better than no agreement.
A “black day” for Europe
Condemnation of the agreement was swift, particularly from France. Prime Minister François Bayrou said it was a “black day” for Europe. His predecessor, Michel Barnier, said the agreement was an admission of weakness.
In a post on X, entrepreneur and commentator Arnaud Bertrand said that the terms of the agreement represent one of the most costly imperial tributes in history:
“This agreement bears no resemblance to agreements between two equal sovereign powers. It is more like the unequal treaties that colonial powers imposed in the 19th century—except that this time, Europe is the recipient.”
It is a reasonable conclusion, says the British journalist. In his view, the rationale behind an increasingly close union within the bloc was that an EU armed with its own currency would be able to rival the US, not only in terms of economic power but also in terms of geopolitical influence. The euro would be a rival to the dollar, and strong growth would give Europe political influence. Pooling sovereignty in areas such as trade would ensure that Europe would have a greater say than it does today.
Sources: hotnews.ro
