The great paradox of our times lies in relying on those who propose ever simpler solutions, ever more ascribable to the black or white dimension, in a world that is increasingly made up of complex phenomena that are difficult to interpret clearly and unambiguously. On this dualism has been composed practically the entire political life of Donald Trump, who in his first week as tenant of the White House has offered several demonstrations of how international relations will be changed, and how the definition of an ally of the United States will change in meaning over the next four years.

One only has to think of the recent episode involving the US and Colombian President, Gustavo Petro, who was guilty of not allowing American military planes containing Colombian migrants to land on Colombian soil, calling for the formulation of a protocol guaranteeing respect for the migrants’ human rights in the repatriation process. The White House’s reaction was not long in coming, with threats of 25% tariffs on all imports from the South American country and even visa sanctions on Petro’s family members, intimidations that were at least largely withdrawn only after a major U-turn by the Colombian president.

As much as it can be argued that it is, at least in part, also the task of the Colombian government to take care of repatriating migrants who have illegally crossed borders, it is necessary to put the record straight on how the process took place: chained migrants; forcing them to accept flights; immediate and unnecessary retaliation even on President Petro’s family, loosened only after obtaining the submission of a country that is a historical ally of the United States and that obviously does not have the strength to conduct such a political battle for long.

In addition to this case, one can think of all the statements made in recent weeks about the Panama Canal, Greenland and even Canada: if these outbursts had come from Biden or any other president of the last hundred years, they would undoubtedly have been branded as ridiculous and indeed would probably have led many to doubt the president’s judgement. Instead, today it seems that all this passes almost unnoticed, that it is somehow inherent to Trump’s strong personality.

What to think, as Europeans?

As Europeans (and pro-Europeans), we cannot overlook the US President’s statements a few days ago at the World Economic Forum in Davos: ‘If you don’t produce in America, then quite simply you will have to pay a duty – different amounts, but duties that will bring hundreds of billions of dollars and even trillions of dollars into our treasury to strengthen our economy and reduce our debt‘. There was also no shortage of attacks on the European Union, accused of favouring unfavourable trade for the US in, for example, the automotive and agri-food sectors.

All these threats can be read as Trump’s desire to create the conditions for bilateral treaties that allow the US to exploit its advantage in terms of economic strength and more. It is hard to really think that the US will enter Panama or Greenland or even Canada with its military, but it is reasonable to think that the threat alone could lead to negotiations aimed at maximising America’s economic advantages, most likely at the expense of its partners and allies. Isolationist policies, in fact, can be ascribed to the category of so-called ‘beggar thyneighbour’ policies, i.e. not aimed at increasing the level of world demand and production, but at shifting it from one part of the world to another.

In practice, the game is clear: for Trump, ‘with us or against us’ no longer applies either, but we could paraphrase this expression with ‘under us or against us’. It will be crucial for the European Union to unite in the face of blackmail that threatens to undermine our economic competitiveness, and here I refer to Piercamillo Falasca’s latest article, but at the same time it will be necessary to relaunch Europe’s ability to be finally ambitious on key sectors such as artificial intelligence, which in the United States sees investments of hundreds of billions of dollars that will put the EU in a position of technological inferiority in another crucial strategic sector, after social media and semiconductors.

The mere hypothesis of duties that could affect all the world’s markets, and in particular the European one, seems to have awakened in Brussels the desire to forge alliances and strengthen strategic partnerships in what we could define as a full-fledged customer diversification: in just a few days political agreements were reached for a free trade pact with Mexico, the feasibility of a similar agreement with Malaysia is being assessed, and in February European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen will travel to India to discuss a strategic alliance pact that will certainly also concern the economic and political possibilities of a greater openness to trade between the parties involved.

Europe called to respond to the ‘under us or against us’ approach

In conclusion, Donald Trump’s foreign policy seems to be a reflection of an era in which the simple and the immediate override complexity and foresight. His approach, which I have called‘under us or against us‘, pushes allies and global partners to come to terms with a more unstable and fragmented world, where brute force and economic threat seem to dominate. In this scenario, the European Union is called upon to respond with a strategy that is not limited to mere defence, but is bold, ambitious and able to boost its competitiveness in crucial areas, such as artificial intelligence and technology. Indeed, if Europe knows how to stop chasing the role of passive spectator and begins to play a leading role in global competition, perhaps it will not only be able to escape the blackmail of Trumpian policies, but will also have the opportunity to regain a leading position in tomorrow’s world.