Patrick Costello: "Europeans have no choice but to develop their defence capabilities"

BarcelonaThe US's distancing from Trump has caused Europe to react on security issues. Patrick Costello, a former European Union official and advisor to the Kofi Annan Foundation, was in Barcelona for a talk at the Macaya Palace of the La Caixa Foundation. Costello reflects on the future of transatlantic relations, the role of Russia and China, and how Europe must adapt to a new international order in which it no longer dictates the rules of the game.

Trump has broken his good relationship with Europe. Can we still talk about a Western blog?

— It is too early to say, but Europeans are very concerned about the future of transatlantic relations in light of recent events. And they are now beginning to take the necessary steps to make Europe less dependent on the United States for security.

Is rearming the right step?

— Europe has been dependent for decades on the security umbrella provided by the United States, and the assumption has always been that this is what the United States wanted. I remember the meetings in Washington a decade ago, when the European Union was trying to take on more responsibility in the Western Balkans. The American view then was that it was not yet time to rearm, so we did not do so, mainly because they did not want it. But in recent months we have seen that they will not necessarily be reliable in providing that security umbrella in the future. If this is the case, I do not see that the Europeans have any choice but to develop their own independent defence capability.

You probably watched the conversation between Trump and Zelensky last Friday. Do you think diplomacy has changed in recent years?

— Yes, diplomacy has changed for all sorts of reasons, but I don't think that conversation reflects that. The meeting last Friday would not have been surprising if it had been held behind closed doors. It's quite normal for exchanges like this to take place between leaders. What makes it remarkable is that it took place in front of the media. In fact, the meeting might not be positive for the American administration, because if you allow these kinds of conversations to take place in public, you make it almost impossible to change your mind. Whereas if you say certain things behind closed doors, you can change your position more easily.

Trump says he's working to end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. Is his diplomacy working?

— This says less about diplomacy and more about how the US, the Trump administration and the Russians view the world. Alexander Stubb, the President of Finland, said a few weeks ago that we are moving towards a world closer to Yalta and less like Helsinki. At Yalta, the great world leaders shared out the world; at Helsinki, a model of cooperative security was chosen. There were rules of the game that everyone followed. This approach has been successful; we have limited wars. But this is changing. Russia sees Ukraine and other parts of Eastern Europe as part of its sphere of influence, and the current US administration has the same attitude in its orbit. Just look at President Trump's statements about Canada, Mexico, Greenland or Panama. This has nothing to do with the model of rules of the game that Europeans have traditionally defended. It is very uncomfortable for Europe to move in this world, but it must adapt to it because we are not the ones who set the rules of the game.

If the US no longer wants to act as a watchdog for democracy, how can there be any guarantee that peace agreements will be complied with?

— There has been a lot of emphasis in recent days – not least by the British Prime Minister – that any peace agreement in Ukraine must come with security guarantees from the United States. Even if Europe is committed to achieving defence autonomy, it will take many years to develop these capabilities. So for now the US is central to security guarantees and of course they are fully aware of this, which is why they feel they can dictate the terms. As Europeans we must show them that there is a better way of doing things, which meets American objectives, but also Ukrainian and European objectives. It must be a win-win; It's not one or all or nothing.

What do you think when you say win-win?

— If there is a peace agreement in which Ukraine receives security guarantees [that Russia will not attack them again], this will mean, first of all, that the war is over. Secondly, and much more importantly, people will no longer die. And thirdly, Ukraine will be able to feel safe, knowing that the Russians are not preparing to invade them again in a few years. The Russians will have achieved the pretext for which they declared war: that Ukraine will not join NATO. There are solutions where everyone could leave the negotiating room saying “we have got what we wanted, we have won,” and that is always a good peace agreement.

How will the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration on China, Mexico and Canada affect these alliances?

— The threat of tariffs serves as a weapon to put pressure on US allies. But if they go ahead, the impact on the US economy will be severe. One of the reasons Trump won the election was because of the price of commodities, which is now rising. The question is whether he can continue to push through certain actions that harm the US economy without harming him domestically. If the Americans introduce tariffs on European goods, there will be a strong retaliation against American goods. And since the transatlantic market is the largest in the world, the impact on the global economy will be enormous. This will affect the US and Trump's domestic support, but it will also affect Europe. So we must wait for the threat of tariffs to remain just that, a threat.

Will China come out on top?

— China certainly benefits politically and diplomatically from the fights between the United States and its allies. The Chinese appear to be the most reliable actor for many countries around the world. However, it is difficult to know what the impact of the US tariffs on China will be. I don't think it will be good for the US or for China. But China is good enough now that it doesn't bother them too much.

We are talking about relations with the Global South. For now, Europe is using it mainly in migration matters, such as the pact between the United Kingdom and Rwanda.

— I understand why politicians in Europe are pushed towards these migration policies, but with an ageing continent, migrants are needed for economic reasons. Paying third parties to keep people out of our countries is a counterintuitive idea. There are many other reasons to foster alliances between Europe and countries in the Global South, such as protecting democratic order, preventing the climate crisis… The European Union is in a position to support the reforms of multilateral development banks, which are necessary for this transition to work.

What reforms can be promoted to give greater space for representation to the Global South?

— All kinds of reforms. The most obvious and most difficult is the reform of the UN Security Council, so that there are permanent members from each of the major continents. Curiously, the last time this was seriously discussed, the main opponent was China. The British and French have shown interest in this reform. But development banks, the IMF and other international organisations would also have to be reformed to respond to a broader agenda, especially when it comes to climate.