Photo licensed under the Unsplash+ License
Europe, it would seem is still committed to enlarged autonomy and a more determined collective effort for greater defense and security in the light of Trump’s waning commitment to NATO and still what seems like a rather feeble commitment to Ukraine. But if recent history is a guide at all there are still many doubts. Still, it would seem that Europe is speeding toward a security statement. As pointed to by Pierre Vimont points out in a CEIP piece, the European Commission is rushing, so it would seem, to get a strategy document out: this to be presented by the President of the European Commission, Ursala von der Leyen this coming September:
“The European Commission’s recent decision to draft a new European Security Strategy has come as a surprise to many. And the desire to deliver it on a very tight timeline, in time for Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s State of the European Union address in September, a mere four years after the EU’s Strategic Compass, is perplexing to some.”
Vimont spent some thirty-eight-years with the French foreign service, including as ambassador to the United States and ambassador to the European Union. The determination to put out a strategy document may be the result of current difficult European circumstances that can no longer be ignored by Europe:
“But the union’s strategic environment has experienced epochal shifts: Russia’s grinding war in Ukraine, China’s accelerated economic dominance and existential threat to many European industries, as well as the United States’ transformation from most trusted ally to unreliable and sometimes coercive partner. Europe is therefore confronted with a new world order where hard power has become the name of the game. As a consequence, security concerns permeate all policies far beyond the military sector. They shape ongoing debates about economic overdependence—from energy to digital applications or critical minerals—with the risk of being instrumentalized for political purposes.”
As Christopher Chivvis, Milan Vaishnav and Rohan Mukherjee point out in FP:
“Today, Europe cuts a hesitant figure on the international scene. It could become a lonely one if it fails to clarify what it represents, where it wants to go, and which partners it intends to work with. This is where the new security strategy can make a difference. In the end, this process should be about redefining the European identity as it confronts a massive set of issues rarely seen in its history.”
“From that point of view, Europe could go for an inward looking approach or, conversely, choose to lead an alliance of like-minded countries dedicated to the reform of the multilateral order. Equally, it could simply focus on managing the present crises as best as it can or raise its game to a vision of what it wants to be in the long term.”
But as Michael Shear in the NYTimes has described the current context for Europe:
“The Iran war — a conflict that most of Europe never wanted — has disrupted life across the region, driving up the price of gas, groceries and travel. The continent’s leaders have pledged to help secure the passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz once the fighting ends. And yet, they seem destined to hear about the next stage of the war from Mr. Trump’s social media feed.”
“But like so much else that has happened in the past several years, many of Europe’s challenges are out of its control.”
“Europe has been unable to resolve the war in Ukraine after more than four years of bloodshed. Its achievements in cutting emissions to combat climate change are overshadowed by the actions of the United States and China. The future of A.I. is being shaped largely elsewhere. Right wing populism has risen, fueled by migration, inequality and misinformation.”
““No matter how you look at it, measure it, this is a difficult, unsettling time for Europe,” said Richard Haass, who served for two decades as the president of the Council on Foreign Relations. He said Europe is partly a victim of circumstance, but also is responsible for its lack of authority over its own fate.”
““It’s not just that they’ve under-spent, but they’ve underorganized themselves when it comes to their own security,” he said. “It’s essentially a bystander, with few exceptions, to the A.I. competition. That’s not something that was done to Europe by the United States or China. That was something that was done by Europe to itself.””
As Richard Haass, former President of the Council on Foreign Relations concludes:
“… he thinks the lack of unity underscores the fundamental problem for Europe as it seeks to shape its future.
“The whole,” he said, “is much less than the sum of its parts.””
It is a very troubled European picture. It will take greater unity and determination than has been shown in the last years. But the regional and global environment may be such that Europe will be driven to greater unity – maybe, kicking, dragging and even screaming. We will see.
On the Canada-US side ‘the sparing’ over whether to successfully conclude a North American trade agreement continues – painfully I might add. As Adrian Morrow and Mark Rendell in the Globe and Mail describe it:
“But Mr. Trump’s plan, unveiled last month, to hit an additional US$20-billion worth of Canadian exports with 50-per-cent tariffs starting Aug. 19 lit a fire under Ottawa, according to two Canadian government sources and one U.S. industry source.”
“The new tariffs would be implemented under Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. While they would affect only about 5 per cent of Canadian exports − a range of goods from alcohol to dairy and electronic equipment − they would hit some industries particularly hard, likely a calculated move to get those sectors to put pressure on Ottawa for a deal. The tariffs would be felt most acutely in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia − while mostly sparing Alberta and Saskatchewan, the two provinces not boycotting U.S. alcohol.”
“Steel and aluminum have been at the heart of Canada-U.S. trade tensions since the first Trump administration, when the President put a 25-per-cent tariff on both metals and left it in place for a year during negotiations over the North American free-trade agreement.”
“The steeper 50-per-cent tariffs have severely squeezed exports of both metals, with shipment volumes heading to the U.S. falling by half in the months after the introduction of tariffs last spring. Aluminum exports have recovered somewhat since then but remain well below 2024 levels; steel exports remain roughly half of what they were in 2024.”
The vocal ‘sharp’ back and forth from both Carney and Trump tells you something about the probable negotiating calculus of both North American leaders. As described by Alex Ballingall in the Toronto Star, in an article titled: “Donald Trump calls Canada’s leaders ‘nasty.’ Mark Carney says trade talks are, too”
““Yes, it’s a tough negotiation,” Carney said in French. “We could change the adjective and say ‘nasty,’ but for Canada it’s a question of jobs, Canadians’ jobs. It’s a question of the future of Canadian businesses.””
“In English, he added, “Yes, we’re standing up for Canadian workers and Canadian businesses, as we always have from the start.””
“Carney was responding to a comment that Trump made in Las Vegas on Wednesday night, when he called out several countries while claiming the U.S. has been “screwed by everybody for years.””
““Canada’s nasty. They are. They’re nasty,” Trump said. “I love the people, but they’re nasty. Nasty leadership.””
As pointed out in this same piece, however, serious discussions do actually continue:
“Meanwhile, for the second week in a row, Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc and Canadian lead trade negotiator Janice Charette were in Washington, D.C. on Thursday for what Carney described as “detailed discussions” with the Americans on a “global” set of issues.”
“In a post on social media, LeBlanc said they had a “constructive and detailed meeting” and that Canada is still pushing for an agreement that “addresses sectoral tariffs” the U.S. has imposed on autos, steel, aluminium and other industries. “
“After Trump threatened the latest round of tariffs in July, Carney pledged that talks would intensify as Canada tries to convince the U.S. — which has ruptured the state of trade with much of the world by using tariffs in a bid to boost American industries — to lessen duties imposed since Trump returned to the White House last year.”
So will they conclude an agreement before August 19th? Well, as Carney suggested:
““Will we get all of that by the 19th of August? We’ll see. But we have to have pathways in order to get that,” he said.”
Canada and the US, or more precisely, Trump and Carney need to reach a successful outcome, maybe not immediately but I suspect eventually – a successful outcome in the longer term partly because Trump will be so preoccupied in so many other and equally consequential issues and outcomes.
There is the Mideast that won’t go away easily for Trump. And then there is China. And indeed the sign of the continuing China dilemma was revealed yet again with China’s numbers on exports. As pointed out in the NYTimes by Daisuke Wakabayashi”
“Even as countries around the world move to curb the flood of Chinese goods, China’s export machine continues to steam ahead. The country posted a trade surplus of $112.5 billion in July, according to data released Friday by the General Administration of Customs.”
“It was the third straight month in which China’s exports exceeded its imports by more than $100 billion — a staggering sum that puts the country on pace to surpass last year’s record $1.19 trillion trade surplus. In July, China’s exports rose 23.9 percent in U.S. dollar terms, while imports climbed 27.5 percent in July.”
There is a lot of bluster. But events keep pressing on the President and he knows, I suspect, how to reduce at least some of that pressure.