Europe Should call Trump’s Bluff on Greenland
The tariff threat is coercion by other means — and the EU has both the moral case and the instruments to respond. A commentary by Moreno Bertoldi, and Marco Buti
Donald Trump’s intemperate reaction to the deployment of European troops to Greenland shows that, this time, Europe has hit a nerve. It is not that a few dozen soldiers could meaningfully resist an American military occupation of the island.
But the mere prospect that US forces would have had to take allied soldiers prisoner dramatically raised the political cost of the military option. Domestically and internationally, America’s image — and the credibility of its alliance system — would have suffered a severe blow. A substantial portion of Congress, and an overwhelming majority of US public opinion, would have opposed such a senseless adventure.
Retreat is not the American president’s style. He has therefore replied with his preferred weapon: the threat of tariffs — in this case, 10 per cent — on the countries that sent troops.
The move seeks to impose a high economic cost on Europe while also fragmenting it, since only some EU member states, plus the UK, would be targeted.
How should the European Union respond to this Trumpian escalation? Should it back down and open negotiations that would ultimately amount to the de jure or de facto transfer of Greenland to the US? Or should it respond firmly, refusing to bow to the logic of might?
We are convinced that, this time, the EU must stand firm — by imposing economic countermeasures, refusing to ratify the July trade agreement, and activating the Anti-Coercion Instrument.
In this confrontation with Trump, Europe is in a more favourable position than in the past — and, in any case, it can no longer afford to beat a retreat in the hope of better days ahead.
On Greenland, Europe holds what English speakers call the moral high ground. There is no justification — other than an imperialist desire for annexation combined with the American president’s grandiose ambitions — for incorporating the island into US territory.
International law and common sense are on the EU’s side, and this is understood by a substantial part of Congress and a majority of American public opinion.
Europe can also count on a simple political constraint: Trump cannot afford a prolonged economic conflict. Midterm elections are approaching and, at present, there is a real risk that the Republican Party will lose control of Congress.
Voters’ dissatisfaction is already acute on the economic front, driven by the erosion of purchasing power caused by a high cost of living — the so-called affordability crisis.
A confrontation with the EU would, beyond its likely negative impact on markets (and therefore on Americans’ wealth), aggravate that crisis further, reducing the chances of an electorally favourable outcome for Trump.
Yet it is not only Europe’s relative leverage that should tilt the balance towards firmness.
If Europe yields again, not only will its international credibility suffer another sharp collapse; the very survival of the EU — and of the democratic systems within it — will be put at risk.
The previously unthinkable has already materialised: a threat to annex territory belonging to an allied country.
Absent a strong European reaction on Greenland, it cannot be ruled out that a Trump administration, emboldened by success, will in the future act on its threat to interfere directly in European domestic politics, backing openly anti-democratic forces. Is that not, in essence, what the new National Security Strategy implies when it argues that the US must “help Europe correct its current trajectory”? A fraternal “help” Europe can gladly do without.
As we have learned at our own expense over the past year, a policy of acquiescence towards Trump has not delivered the hoped-for results.
The Greenland crisis offers an opportunity to change strategy. In an interview with The New York Times in recent days, asked whether he understood the implications for Nato of his claims on Greenland, Trump replied: “It’s a choice.”
He has made his choice. Europe must now make its own.
An Italian version of this article was published by the daily Il Sole 24 Ore
IEP@BU does not express opinions of its own. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors.
