Relations between the United States and Europe have changed dramatically since Donald Trump’s arrival in office. His desire to implement 50% tariffs is a testament to this.
Historically, the ties between the two regions may have resembled what Mark Mazower wrote in the Financial Times this weekend: “…each partner owes much to the other and each is accustomed to using the other as a foil to think about its own identity and its values.” From Tocqueville to recent years, the history of relations has been built on partnership.
Europe continues to adhere to a pattern that enabled the industrial revolution, the acceptance of diverse identities, and the confrontation of ideas within a framework that, since the post-war years, has never resulted in armed conflict. This cooperative dynamic is unique but fruitful. The United States accepted it for a long time because it was the best way to replace a federal government like the one in the USA.
Yet history has changed. Washington’s vision is no longer that of an allied Europe implementing an original institutional framework.
With Donald Trump, the perception of the world has changed; it has become a kind of zero-sum game. “For me to gain more, you have to lose something.” This is why Europe, too diverse, too coordinated and cooperative, appears incompatible with the Trump administration’s hostility to cooperation.
This is where a recent text published by the American administration comes in. Its purpose is to indicate that Europe as it presents itself denies its fundamental values and weakens democracy itself. Europe must, according to the author, value its Christian origins and calls for the construction of a civilizational alliance to transform European political systems into a series of Christian nations like Hungary.
To influence history, Washington has supported far-right parties like the AfD in Germany and the PiS in Poland. This offensive is also being driven by the tech lobby, which is hostile to the regulation and taxation sought by Brussels. Washington sees this data regulation as an illustration of the loss of freedom of speech in Europe, thus justifying its offensive.
Two remarks regarding this attack
Europe has always defined itself by its diversity, as has the United States. This is the dynamic of the Enlightenment. It is this historical diversity that I mentioned above, and which must not be denied under any circumstances, lest we lose our soul.
The second observation is the burning obligation for Europeans to subscribe to a narrative of their own. This is the real challenge: succeeding in inventing a narrative that defines Europe autonomously. Europe has values to defend. It must go on the offensive to avoid the risk of being destabilized.
This is essential.