EU Security Concerns and the U.S.-EU Trade Deal

A little while back, I asked the question "To What Extent Are the Trade Negotiations about Security?" At that time, we were starting to get hints about the relevance of the Ukraine war to the U.S.-EU trade negotiations. In the last week or two, we've been getting more clarity on this. I've gathered a few recent quotes from EU officials that generally point in the same direction. See below for the full text of all the quotes.

I think it's worth pointing out that this issue is not necessarily an all or nothing one, but rather a question of degree. When EU decision-makers were confronting the trade demands of the Trump administration, a desire to maintain some degree of U.S. support for the Ukraine war was a factor, but not the only consideration. The question is, to what extent did the Ukraine war influence the EU's approach (and the negotiating result as well)?

What we need here, when this is all over and people are willing to talk a bit more, is for some political scientists or think tankers (or anyone really) to dig into what was going on in the minds of the EU decisions-makers. How did they weigh and balance everything in developing their response? How important was U.S. security support in the calculation? Did they consider giving it up in order to avoid making trade concessions? And then going forward, to what extent will the impact of being forced to make concessions lead to a rethink of how they do security?

This all applies not just to the EU but to others as well. How exactly did everyone factor in their various security concerns when negotiating with the Trump administration on trade and investment? Japan and South Korea are two of the more prominent examples of governments that depend on the U.S. for security. How did government officials there see things? And how did their weighing and balancing compare to that of countries such as Vietnam or Indonesia?

It may take some time, but I hope to see many papers written about how government officials were thinking about security issues as part of these trade negotiations (as well as everything else they were thinking about of course).

EU officials commenting on the Ukraine war and U.S.-EU trade negotiations

This is from a press conference with Bernd Lange, European Parliament International Trade Committee Chair:

Question:

What do you make of the argument that this is much broader than trade, that we should look at the defense question, that the alliance we want to keep alive with the US, and that it's not so much about pumps and motorcycles, but much more about keeping Ukraine in a fighting chance?

Lange:

Of course, this is a crucial element. Are we weak because we have no possibilities to defend ourselves and support Ukraine? That's a real question. And I guess we have to do more. And therefore I'm really supporting also the revision of the financial system of the European Union, so that we have the possibility to create more military technique here in Europe, that we have a possibility to join also procurement for this, and also being closer in the structure of military defense. So that's really a crucial one. But of course, I'm quite sure that a more stronger approach would also lead to different result. But this is history.

And this is Lange at an INTA Committee meeting:

I guess the main argument is that we are really in a security partnership with United States. And United States made pressure specifically regarding Ukraine, to accept this unbalanced deal.

And here is something from an interview with Lange (using Google Translate):

... Trump was apparently not only concerned about the tariffs. During the talks in Scotland, he also repeatedly hinted that the US could end its support for Ukraine if Europe did not agree to his demands. The Trade Commissioner confirmed this to me. 

Turning to other officials, here is something from a speech by European Council President António Costa:

Trade is one dimension of our relationship with the United States. Security—especially during a war on our doorstep—is an existential concern. Escalating tensions with a key ally over tariffs, while our Eastern border is under threat, would have been an imprudent risk. That is why, at this moment, we chose diplomacy over escalation. We gave space to dialogue, we chose restraint because we are responsible. Stabilizing transatlantic relations and ensuring U.S. engagement in Ukraine’s security has been a top priority. 

Politico has the following quotes from Sabine Weyand, European Commission Director General for Trade:

Some context: Trade department Director General Sabine Weyand this week said the European Union essentially had to accept an agreement with Washington over fears “the U.S. would abandon the security partnership with the EU,” in a conversation with Süddeutsche Zeitung Dossier editor (and Playbook alum) Florian Eder at the European Forum Alpbach.  

...

Not (just) about trade: “We’ve had a discussion about this inside the EU, what we are trying to achieve and looking at the broader picture, and not at trade in isolation,” she explained. “The decision was that we needed to hold the U.S. close to us in security terms and to preserve their commitment to Ukraine.” 

There's more from Weyand in Politico here:

A SILVER LINING: At the same event — expertly moderated by Playbook alum Florian Eder, now editor of Süddeutsche Zeitung Dossier — Weyand said the deal between Trump and Ursula von der Leyen in Turnberry, however critics may see it, has enabled broader engagement between Washington and Brussels.

One example: Cooperation on how to tackle the war in Ukraine. “What we are seeing now is that actually the understanding we reached on the tariff front has created a basis for engagement between the EU and the U.S. on a lot of other issues,” Weyand said. “We will have to see how far that will carry us, but at least we have another basis of engagement with the administration which wasn’t there before.”

The nexus between security and trade: “We are paying the price for the fact we ignored the wake-up call we got during the first Trump administration — and we went back to sleep. And I hope that this is not what we are doing now,” Weyand added, referring to the fact the EU’s dependence on the U.S. security umbrella effectively forced its hand in the trade talks. 

Finally, here is Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who didn't make the connection quite as strongly as the others:

Question:

How much did security concerns matter when EU agreed to an imbalanced trade deal with US? And I mean, security concerns that US will continue to support Ukraine and stay with Europe.

Von der Leyen:

So first of all, I very much welcome that President Trump is willing to engage in the security guarantees that we are building for Ukraine. When we had the visit in Washington, it was also clear that we are working together on an Article Five-like type of security guarantees. And here it was clear that the United States are willing to engage, and this is something that [is] really welcome. Besides that, we have secured a good trade deal. It's a good trade deal because, it's certainly not perfect, but it's a good trade deal because if you look at the content, we have no stacking, so it's 15% and not on top, like all the other deals have shown. So we are the best starting position. And we are the only ones who, for example, have included in the 15% the pharmaceutical industry, or we have the car industry there. So if you look at the potential risks we had faced and the positive outcome that is there, I think this is a good, as I said, not a perfect deal, but there is no linkage between the two.

Question:

But did the security situation matter when you decide that we take this deal?

Von der Leyen:

For me, it was important that we have predictability and stability for our business and our economies, and that we find a solution that is manageable for both sides. And I think predictability and stability in these times, and you see in those regions where no deal is achieved, but high tariffs are there, how advantageous it is to have the predictability, to have the stability and to have the clarity between us, what the foundation is on which we are trading together, how valuable it is to have such a deal.