Much has been made of the lopsided deal Ursula von der Leyen struck with Donald Trump, which among other things traded zero tariffs on US goods for a 15 per cent tax on EU exports to the US. She and her Commissioner for Trade Maroš Šefčovič plead that this is the best deal possible under demanding circumstances, meaning presumably at the bargaining table with a tough and self-interested American president. This is clearly a new world for EU leaders. An America that was once content to enrich Europe by sucking in her exports with no appreciable barriers now faces a President determined to rectify trade imbalances and make Europe pay for the American security blanket.
As Anthony Constantini points out in these pages, the EU is ill-equipped to negotiate head-to-head with actual national states headed by powerful executives. An odd, quasi-federal trade bloc cannot couple its mercantile interests with its security needs because security remains the jealously guarded domain of its member states. This rickety structure could thrive as an adjunct to NATO during the Cold War, but has failed to evolve to meet the challenges presented by the end of the Long European Peace in 2014. The eurozone remains unsupported by taxing authority over the €16 trillion eurozone economy. The common Schengen border recedes into fond memory as member states renew their emergency border controls. EU banks rely on national deposit insurance alone, which is adequate in Germany or the Netherlands, but invites economic disaster in Italy. And of course a true common foreign and security policy is a distant aspiration brought no closer by the harangues of Kaja Kallas.
The EU may demand the world treat its ambassadors as representatives of a sovereign state, but it is clear that Presidents Trump, Xi and Putin do not regard it as such in any practical sense. Beyond its structural shortcomings, the EU suffers from both an obsolete world view and the sort of leaders promoted to advance it. In a world governed by international institutions that subsume the traditional powers of nations under their rules and regulations, the EU would thrive. Its leaders are adept at smoothing over stark differences with awkward compromises, and punting difficult issues deep into the tall grass for years at a time. Both skills serve the core competency of international institutions: Not resolving disputes with any finality, but creating the need for future meetings, ideally in the better class of national capitals.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member