Anti Coercive Instrument
Europe is looking for a different Trump strategy, but may end up where it already is
Since Donald Trump dramatically escalated his claims on Greenland, European countries have been in a state of shock and anger. Their appeasement strategy appears to be in shambles. If anything, it has emboldened a moody US president to go for more, especially while still feeling the effect of the high caused by the successful military blitz in Venezuela. Confronted with a new Trumpian threat to slap an additional 10% tariff on goods from those European countries that dare challenge his wishes, most of Europe’s public opinion is once again calling for a show of force.
Some are arguing the bloc should respond to Trump with its own nuclear trade weapon, the anti coercive instrument. The tool has never been used before. It would allow the bloc to hit a broad range of American economic interests, from goods of any kind, to services - think of big tech and financial services, to public procurement. In its extreme form the instrument could de facto reduce US firms’ activity in Europe to a trickle. The French government has argued for its use, or is at least in favor of threatening to deploy it, ever since Trump’s ‘liberation day’ in April of last year. At the time German led resistance in the bloc was too big - to be used ACI needs a qualified majority of member states in favor - and the EU’s leader, Ursula von der Leyen, settled for a lopsided trade deal and a few public genuflections before the US president. Advocates for the soft approach argued leaving ACI in the safe was the best way to avoid a wider rift that could have provided Trump with excuses to drop Ukraine and allow Russia to win the war. That underlying worry has not gone away. Yet, the situation is evolving. As guardrails placed around Trump are repeatedly tested, Europeans are forced to revisit their strategy.
In reaction to Greenland, on Monday German vice chancellor Lars Klingbeil explained that Trump has reached (but perhaps not yet crossed?) a red line and Europe must respond in kind. His comments were immediately interpreted as a hardening of Germany’s position. However, his boss and coalition partner, chancellor Friedrich Merz, sounded much more guarded, and used diplomatic code language for a determined wait and see approach. Germany’s government appears to be split on how to best handle the mercurial American president. Even in other key European countries there is still little appetite to escalate. France’s new attempt to deploy ACI may have to wait. Instead of deploying their most powerful trade weapon, Europeans will likely have to find alternative ways to present a united front at the gathering of the rich and powerful in the Swiss town Davos and at their own summit on Thursday. What they come up with matters, not only for Europe.
MAGA policymakers act as if they thought domestic opposition to Trump in Congress hopes for a more cohesive and determined Europe. That may well be one of the reasons why senior administration officials are so obsessed with replacing moderate European governments with right wing ethno populists. It’s not just because they would like to deal with more pliant allied governments. The main objective is to fragment Europe and its institutions and make Trump’s policies appear inevitable, make it pointless to resist him, in the US as well as in Europe.
Trump will lead a large US delegation to Davos, and there is no chance he will not try to steal the show with a good dose of provocation. Trump admits he likes to own things, Nobel prize medals, real estate, countries, people. He will do his utmost to own the Davos crowd, too. The president also knows that he needs to grab as much as possible while resistance is still scattered and unorganized, both at home and abroad. One of the reasons for his rush. Another may be that while he is moving fast his vulnerabilities are easier to conceal.
In fact, much of what he has done in recent months is profoundly defensive in nature, from his tariffs, to his posture towards his biggest rival China. Venezuela and Greenland belong to that category, too. All signs of a waning superpower, dancing before the music stops. To retreat eventually, Trump’s America needs to make sure nobody can contest its neighborhood, or threaten to launch missiles against US targets from afar. Hence, his obsession with Greenland, arguably one of the key building blocks for his golden dome, his planned missile shield that resembles a modern Maginot line, built to ensure invulnerability into the future. Often, when powerful nations act in such ways, there are no longer sure they can prevail in bigger contests. And usually, they end up blindsided by new ways to circumvent seemingly impregnable defensive lines. At the start of World War II it was a declining France barricaded behind the defensive Maginot line that was invaded by Nazi Germany within days. In more ancient times, defensive walls were overcome by a Trojan horse.
Today, if Trump’s views prevail, the US will offcially cease to treat NATO as a sufficient guarantor for its own security. Otherwise, bolstering the alliance’s footprint on Greenland would be sufficient. But instead, Trump admits he is only willing to defend what he owns. According to him, contractual arrangements are insufficient to achieve that. Following such logic can only lead to one conclusion, the alliance’s mutual assistance clause, the famous article V, is already de facto dead letter. Elevating Trump to the role of NATO’s daddy, as done in a cringeworthy appearance by the alliance’s secretary general Mark Rutte a few months ago, does not change that. Even daddies eventually discover they don’t own their children, especially once they have grown up.
And so this week will provide another chance for Europe to demonstrate it is indeed growing up. If it fails to act it will continue to be abused. If instead, it demonstrates a new found ability to act more independently, the bloc will speed up Trump’s departure from Europe.