At a rapid pace, the European Commission is concluding trade agreements with like-minded countries. This week it was Australia’s turn. Prior to that, agreements were reached with the South American Mercosur countries and India.
It is no longer about gaining an extra percentage point of economic growth, but about cooperation to protect the economies of the member states against China and the United States. The agreement with Australia therefore provides for trade with no or lower tariffs than those imposed by Trump, as well as access—crucial for the EU—to scarce raw materials.
The successive conclusion of agreements that took years to negotiate is a response to the loss of the United States as a reliable partner.
Fear of Trump is giving way to a sense of realism. Vague statements, such as expressing “understanding” for the war, seemed like an attempt not to offend Trump. But that understanding is quickly disappearing.
There is no doubt that Iran poses a threat to the Middle East, but when domestic economies are affected and people demand compensation for high energy prices, politicians quickly withdraw their “understanding.”
G7 leaders, excluding the United States, now describe the war as “unlawful” and “unnecessary.” In Australia, Von der Leyen called in unmistakable terms for the war to be stopped as soon as possible.
The first casualty of this cautious shift appears to be NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. His flattery toward Trump may previously have been somewhat justifiable, but his unconditional support for the war in the Middle East is now putting him in a difficult position. With that support, Rutte did not speak on behalf of the entire NATO—yet that is precisely his role. For instance, Spanish Prime Minister Sánchez has always been firmly opposed to the war.
This undermines Rutte’s position, which had already been weakened when he responded in the European Parliament with “keep on dreaming” to the legitimate question of whether Europe could become more independent from the United States in the short term. For many in the European Parliament, that moment transformed Rutte from a Trump whisperer into a mouthpiece for the American president.
The shift in the debate is also evident in the fact that it initially focused on regime change and the Iranian threat but now centers mainly on the economic impact of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
If the war continues, there is little willingness to sail through the strait, despite Iranian authorities having informed the International Maritime Organization (IMO) that countries not aligned with the United States could be granted safe passage.
This may also include countries such as Australia, Canada, Japan, the United Arab Emirates, and several European countries including the Netherlands, which in a joint statement condemned attacks on ships in the Gulf, called on all parties to respect international law, and pledged to work toward ensuring free passage through the strait.
A new “coalition of the willing” of more than thirty countries now appears to be taking shape to achieve this. But, just like the coalition for Ukraine, security guarantees can only be provided once the war has ended.
The significance of this initiative is that like-minded countries are drawing closer together. This demonstrates that Trump is increasingly isolating himself—and that the United States will ultimately pay a price for it.
Experts
Related Content
