Early in 2026, “(a)fter months
of intense negotiations,” the E.U. concluded “a free-trade deal with India,”
which, if ratified by the E.U.’s upper and lower chambers (the European Council
and the European Parliament), would sharply reduce “tariffs on E.U. products
from cars to wine as the world looks for alternative markets following
President Donald Trump’s tariffs.”[1]
Signaling that something more than trade was involved in the treaty, “(b)oth
countries hailed a ‘new chapter in strategic relations’ as both sides”
sought “alternatives to the US market.”[2]
The E.U. had just engineered a free-trade treaty with four South American
countries. Competition for better, cheaper, trade was reducing Trump’s bargaining
power by means of tariffs. Using them to inflict geopolitical harm on other
countries, including the E.U., would become less effective as free-trade deals
excluding the U.S. materialized. The implications, and even the motive in the
free-trade negotiations between the E.U. and India, extend beyond economics.
At the time, India was “facing
tariffs of 50% from the Trump administration.”[3]
Half of that percentage was a penalty on India for buying Russian oil. The tariffs
“severely dented” India’s exports and thus gave India a huge incentive to
negotiate with the Europeans. On the European side of the equation, Trump had
just threatened to impose tariffs on any country opposing the American purchase
of Greenland before relenting at Davos. Such market uncertainty had momentarily
stirred Wall Street and shaken European export-oriented businesses. Quite
understandably, given such uncertainty, E.U. President von der Leyen was
emphatic when the India deal was reached. “We did it—we delivered the mother of
all deals,” she said.[4]
“This is the tale of two giants,” she added, “who choose partnership in a true
win-win fashion. A strong message that cooperation is the best answer to global
challenges.”[5] The
American president, von der Leyen’s counterpart, was without doubt among the
challenges, which also included Russia’s militaristically aggressive president
and the wholly unrepentant genocidal state of Israel. The broader message from
the E.U.-India trade announcement is that the bad boys can be obviated, and
that really good trade deals can be reached as a result.
The E.U.’s trade minister Sefcovic observed that the pressing need to find other markets and thus insulate E.U. trade from whimsical American impediments to E.U.-U.S. trade gave an incentive for negotiations to proceed “with a new philosophy” of avoiding subjecting sensitive goods to free trade. “If this is sensitive for you, let’s not touch it,” he explained as the new modus operendi in the negotiations.[6] I contend the pressing mutual interests to render Trump’s threats powerless fostered this new strategy. That is, both countries looked “to de-risk their economies from the threat of Trump’s tariffs.”[7] The hurdles that had scuttled E.U.-India trade negotiations beginning in 2007 were thus obviated at least in part due to the erratic trade policies coming out of Washington.
It is significant that the E.U. characterized the deal with India as an instance of “rules-based cooperation.”[8] Russia and Israel were both severely breaching international rules, and even U.S. President Trump’s whimsical application and withdrawal of tariffs can be viewed as contrary to the constancy of rules. Business abhors such volatility, and so do most governments. The bad boys are the exception, and the good boys and girls were smart to work around the baddies. Given the extent and depth of corruption (i.e., lies and refusals to enforce criminal law with impunity) and the sheer, unprovoked aggressiveness in the police departments of too many of the U.S.'s member-states and at the federal level, where the aggression directed at Minnesota citizens was nothing short of animalistic in January, 2026, the challenge to a rules-based rather than power/whim-based order was a major American problem beyond “merely” Washington having supplied weapons to Israel to wipe Gaza and its people off the map—literally into cold, wet tents.
2. Ibid., italics added.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
