The blunt threat from former US President Donald Trump to impose sweeping tariffs on European allies unless they agreed to a US purchase of Greenland has starkly revealed the diminishing power of coercive diplomacy. The episode, which sparked a swift and unified European response, underscores a critical shift: when bullies are confronted, their power, which relies on fear, often evaporates.
A United European Front Emerges
The reaction from European capitals was both immediate and coordinated. France's President Emmanuel Macron stated unequivocally that "no amount of intimidation" would change Europe's stance. Denmark, which holds sovereignty over Greenland, anchored the issue firmly within Nato's framework of collective security. Notably, even Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, often seen as ideologically aligned with Mr Trump, publicly labelled the tariff threat a "mistake" and confirmed she had told him so directly.
This collective pushback carries significant institutional weight. The European Parliament is now moving to pause ratification of the EU-US trade deal negotiated last summer. The three largest political blocs in Strasbourg – conservatives, social democrats, and liberals – are acting in concert. As the UK learned during Brexit, the EU runs trade policy, not individual national capitals. This structure presents a formidable barrier to unilateral pressure.
Institutional Consequences and Global Realignments
Mr Trump's approach failed to account for the institutional consequences of intimidating Europe. He can threaten governments, but he cannot easily browbeat the EU's designed mechanisms, which are built to withstand coercion. Furthermore, the UK, though outside the EU, joined allies in a joint statement warning that the threats risked a "dangerous downward spiral" and undermined transatlantic relations.
The global landscape is showing signs of adaptation. Canada, a traditional US ally, is hedging its bets, exemplified by its trade deal with Beijing. This illustrates how middle powers are diversifying their partnerships in response to Washington's erratic behaviour. The construction of a rules-based system is progressing, albeit increasingly without the United States at its core.
The Folly of Bullying Over Persuasion
Some commentators have drawn parallels with Richard Nixon's "madman theory" of foreign policy. However, a crucial distinction exists. Nixon's unpredictability in 1971 was deployed within a crumbling system to create leverage. Today, Mr Trump's shocks to the system appear driven by a relish for the spectacle itself. This matters profoundly because effective coercive foreign policy requires domestic legitimacy. With polling consistently showing a majority of Americans view his presidency as a failure, a president lacking consent at home struggles to credibly demand submission abroad.
The episode ultimately reveals a fundamental miscalculation. True power in the international arena rests not on ultimatums, but on trust, predictability, and the ability to persuade others to follow. The recommended path forward is clear: drop the tough talk, focus on bolstering Greenland's defences through cooperation, and build proper commercial partnerships that benefit both the US and the island's population. The more the world witnesses this brand of bullying, the quicker it learns to operate independently.
