With the tariff roulette wheel once again spinning on the Oval Office table, the world seems faced with the poisonous dilemma of standing up to Donald Trump or bowing its head. With the countdown to the end of the ninety-day truce approaching, the possible imposition of a protectionist regime unprecedented in decades is once again accelerating the level of global uncertainty. On Sunday, just hours before the start of the BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro, Trump threatened an additional 10% tariff on any country that "aligns itself with the anti-American policies" of the great geopolitical bloc of the Global South.
And this Monday, the barb was aimed at Japan and South Korea. The US president informed the governments of Tokyo and Seoul by letter of the imposition of 25% tariffs, starting August 1, on all goods imported from these two Asian countries. For their part, in Brazil, the BRICS not only held their breath awaiting Washington's next announcements, but also accused the European Union of "discriminatory" protectionism because "under the pretext of environmental concerns," such as the carbon border adjustment mechanism or the measures to limit the import of basic products that drive the Global South.
Nervousness has also set in in Brussels, in the midst of negotiations with Washington, and with the internal conviction that if Trump wants to sell a tariff victory to his public opinion, the EU is likely to be the weak link to sacrifice.
Although French President Emmanuel Macron favors confrontation and his Economy Minister rails against the "world of predators" who have decided to blow up current rules and balances, most EU countries, starting with Germany and Italy, prefer to avoid a trade war at all costs.
In addition, the spectacle of European division is compounded this week by a motion of censure against the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, driven by the far right. The reason is the so-called Pfizergate scandal, which broke out in April 2021 and has to do with the Commission President's refusal to reveal the private messages she exchanged with the head of the pharmaceutical company Pfizer during the negotiation of the multi-billion-pound purchase of vaccines in the midst of the pandemic9.
The motion, which will be voted on Thursday, will not prosper, but it will have served to further portray the institutional moment of the European Union and its contradictions.
"It's ironic," said a European official, "that Von der Leyen has ended up delegitimized by the Commission's actions at a time of emergency that, in Brussels, was seen as a step forward in the protection of Europeans. It's also ironic that the attack comes from the far right when – even the Social Democrats and the Greens – are openly outraged by the European People's Party's shift to the right and criticize it for its alliances on migration with the most radical wing of the European Parliament." "If you feed the beast, the day will come when the beast will eat you," said the Greens' spokesperson for Von der Leyen yesterday during the debate session of a motion doomed to failure because the majority in the chamber does not want to sign the far-right's text, not because the president of the Community executive.
All of this is yet another illustration of the weaknesses of von der Leyen's second term, with a politically weaker Commission, even more fragile parliamentary majorities, and a legislative agenda increasingly at the mercy of the radical right. But it is also a consequence of von der Leyen's own exercise of power, having already been found guilty by the General Court of the European Union of violating transparency rules in the Pfizergate scandal.
Given this scenario, the Commission has a difficult time leading a negotiation that was lost from the start against a Donald Trump who has managed to widen the dividing lines straining the EU. There is a certain disappointment among the ambassadors of the Twenty-Seven. Economist Paul Krugman wrote at the end of May that "Europe must overcome its learned impotence and act like the great power it is" in the face of arguments that are more about "accounting deception" than real imbalance. But it's not the EU's strength as an economic actor that determines its negotiating position, but rather its awareness of its security weakness. And, for now, the Europeans are moving toward a negotiated agenda of concessions.
