Two hundred years after the United Kingdom (UK) imperialists forced China to sign a humiliating treaty and open its market to opium, the European Union (EU) is facing its own “century of humiliation.” Donald Trump’s pressure on the EU through an unbalanced trade agreement and threats of tariffs reveal how dependent Europe is today on the United States (U.S.) military and technological power, while analysts warn that the bloc is confronted with deep strategic weaknesses.
After being defeated by the UK in the First Opium War, the Qing dynasty in 1842 signed a treaty that condemned China to more than a hundred years of foreign oppression and colonial control of trade policy, N1 writes.
It was the first in a series of so-called “unequal treaties,” in which the militarily and technologically dominant power of the time imposed unilateral terms in order to reduce its enormous trade deficit.
Sound familiar? Fast forward almost two centuries, and the EU is just beginning to realize what that looks like.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last month rushed to Donald Trump’s golf resort in Turnberry, Scotland, to finalize a highly unbalanced trade agreement, which caused concern among politicians and analysts that Europe had lost the influence it once considered its own as a leading global trading power.
Von der Leyen’s critics quickly claimed that accepting Trump’s 15 percent tariff on most European products represented an act of “submission,” a “clear political defeat for the EU” and “ideological and moral capitulation.”
If she expected that would keep the U.S. president at bay, a brutal disappointment followed. As soon as the ink on the trade deal was barely dry, Trump on Monday further threatened new tariffs on the EU because of digital regulations that would affect U.S. tech giants. If the EU did not give in, the U.S. would stop exporting vital microchip technology, he warned.
His threat came less than a week after Brussels believed it had received a written guarantee from Washington that its digital legal framework and sovereignty were safe.
Trump can use this coercive leverage because, just like the UK imperialists of the 19th century, he holds military and technological power and knows well that his European counterpart lags far behind in both sectors. He knows that Europe does not want to confront Russian President Vladimir Putin without U.S. military support and cannot function without U.S. chip technology, so he believes he can dictate the trade agenda.
European Commissioner for Trade Maros Sefcovic last month strongly implied that the deal with the U.S. reflects Europe’s strategic weakness and its need for U.S. support. “This is not just about trade: it’s about security, about Ukraine, about current geopolitical volatility,” he explained.
The trade agreement is a “direct function of Europe’s weakness in the security field, the fact that it cannot ensure its own military security and that for 20 years it has not invested in its own security,” said Thorsten Benner, director of the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin, also highlighting failures in investing in “technological strength” and strengthening the single market.
Just as Chinese leadership ignored warnings over the years, so too has Europe disregarded signs of danger.
“We are paying the price because we ignored the alarm we got during the first Trump administration, and we fell asleep again. I hope we are not doing that now,” said Sabine Weyand, Director-General for Trade at the European Commission, speaking on a panel at the European Forum Alpbach on Monday, before Trump once again threatened new tariffs.
It is clear that Trump’s volatile tariff game is not over, and the 27-nation bloc will face further political insults and unequal negotiating outcomes this autumn. To prevent humiliation from becoming permanent, the EU faces the huge task of reducing its dependence on the U.S. in defense, technology, and finance.
Restless waters
The Treaty of Nanking, signed under duress in 1842 on the UK warship HMS Cornwallis in the Yangtze River, obliged the Chinese to hand over the territory of Hong Kong to UK colonizers, pay reparations, and agree to a “fair and reasonable” tariff. UK merchants had the right to trade in five “treaty ports” with whomever they wished.
The Opium War began what China later called its “century of humiliation.”
The UK forced the Chinese into a devastating opium trade in order for London to reduce its enormous silver deficit toward China. It was an era that still shapes China’s strategic policy today, both domestic and international.
The key factor that coerced the Qing dynasty was the failure to invest in military and technological advancement. It is known that Chinese Emperor Qianlong in 1793 told the UK that China did not need the “barbarian products” of other nations. Although gunpowder and firearms were Chinese inventions, the lack of experimentation and innovation slowed their development, meaning that Qing dynasty weapons lagged 200 years behind the UK in design, production, and technology.
Similarly, the EU is now being punished for decades of lagging behind the U.S. The reduction in military spending after the Cold War made European countries dependent on the U.S. military for security; complacency regarding technological development means that the EU now lags behind global rivals in almost all key technologies.
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, for his part, declared the beginning of a new world order – which he called the “Turnberry system” – comparing the U.S.-EU trade agreement to the post-war financial system established at Bretton Woods in 1944.
Turbulence ahead
With Monday’s attack, Trump showed little respect for the EU’s desire to avoid sensitive issues from the non-binding joint statement. The vagueness of the four-page text leaves room for new demands or threats of retaliation if the EU fails to fulfill its side of the deal.
Further humiliation may follow as the parties try to work out details, from a tariff-quota system on steel and aluminum to exceptions for certain sectors, which still need to be agreed upon.
“This agreement is so vague that there are many points where conflicts can easily escalate and be used as an excuse for why other parts will not be implemented,” said Niclas Poitiers, researcher at the Bruegel think tank.
Asked what would happen if the EU failed to deliver on its promise of 600 billion dollars of investment in the U.S., Trump earlier this month said: “Well, then they pay tariffs of 35 percent.”
The EU is aware of this danger. The European Commission claims that the 600 billion dollar figure only reflects broad intentions of the corporate sector that Brussels bureaucrats cannot enforce.
But Trump could use that promise as a pretext to impose higher tariffs.
“We expect further turbulence,” said a high-ranking EU official, on condition of anonymity. “But we feel we have a very clear insurance policy.”
By accepting the agreement, presented as the “less bad” option after Trump’s tariff threats, Brussels showed that blackmail works.
Beijing will watch developments with interest, just as EU-China relations have reached a new low, and China’s dominance of minerals needed by the West for green, digital, and defense ambitions gives Beijing enormous geopolitical leverage.
Escape from irrelevance
But what, if anything, can the bloc do to avoid prolonging its geopolitical weakening?
In preparing for the agreement, von der Leyen repeatedly emphasized that the EU’s strategy in relations with the U.S. should rest on three elements: readiness for countermeasures, diversification of trade partners, and strengthening of the single market.
For some, the EU should see the agreement as a wake-up call that will enable deep changes and increase the bloc’s competitiveness through institutional reforms, as highlighted last year in reports by former European Central Bank President Mario Draghi and former Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta.
Draghi warned that Trump’s ability to force the bloc to act according to his will shows that the EU risks irrelevance, or worse, if it does not consolidate its actions. He also pointed out failures in security: “Europe is poorly equipped in a world where geo-economy, security and stability of supply sources, and not efficiency, shape international trade relations,” he said.
Eamon Drumm, researcher at the German Marshall Fund, also emphasized the importance of treating the European business environment as a geopolitical resource that needs to be strengthened. Investments in infrastructure, demand, and companies are necessary to reduce energy costs, better utilize European savings for investments in European companies, and complete capital market integration, Drumm argues.
French Minister for Europe Benjamin Haddad said that “massive investments in AI, quantum computing, and green technologies, and the protection of our sovereign industries, just as the Americans are doing,” are necessary.
Free trade
For others, the answer lies in deepening and diversifying trade ties: Brussels insists that a trade deal with the Mercosur bloc of South American countries will soon be published, and trade with Indonesia, India, and others is being considered. Intensifying trade with the CPTPP bloc, focused on Asia, is also openly discussed.
“Alongside the modernization of [the World Trade Organization], the EU must continue to build a network of trade agreements with reliable partners,” said Bernd Lange, German Social Democrat and chairman of the European Parliament’s trade committee.
Drumm says Europe now faces a choice:
“Will it strengthen its position as the center of free trade in a world where globalization is unraveling, or will it become a battlefield where the growing competition between China and the U.S. plays out?”
