EU Lawmaker Proposes 'Trade Bazooka' Strategy Against Trump

When it comes to dealing with U.S. President Donald Trump, actions speak louder than words, says European lawmaker Karin Karlsbro. Trump is currently facing off with European leaders who oppose his repeated threats to seize control of Greenland, and his refusal to rule out doing so by force. The people of Greenland, which is an autonomous territory of Denmark, overwhelmingly oppose a U.S. takeover. Denmark, a longtime U.S. ally and a fellow member of the military alliance NATO, has repeatedly rebuked Trump’s overtures. Trump announced earlier this weekend that eight countries — EU members Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Finland, along with Britain and Norway — will face a 10 per cent tariff for opposing U.S. control of Greenland. In response, the EU is debating retaliatory tariffs against the U.S., or employing its Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI). Colloquially known as the “trade bazooka,” the ACI would limit access to public tenders, investments or banking activity, or restrict trade in services, including digital services. EU members are divided about whether to bust out the so-called bazooka. But Karlsbro, a Swedish member of European Parliament, says it’s time to take off the kid gloves. Here is part of her conversation with As It Happens host Nil Kӧksal. "Europe will not be blackmailed" is how Denmark's prime minister put it. Is blackmail the word you would use to describe what is happening with Trump and these tariffs? Yes, I think that's a good word to use in this case, because what we see and what we hear from the White House is something really, really extraordinary. And this language, what we hear, the threats, should not take place between allies. You've used the phrase, and others have as well, "trade bazooka." It is an Anti-Coercion Instrument that you have at your disposal, but it's quite extraordinary as well. Explain for our listeners what you mean when you say "trade bazooka." It's time to speak the language that President Trump understands. Deterrence must be credible, visible and applicable not only to the situation concerning Greenland, but to all forms of coercion from the United States. So it's time to use the so-called bazooka. This means that if one EU country is exposed to a serious economic threat, it should be considered an attack on the union as a whole. The EU can then respond jointly with the toughest measures, which could involve tariffs on products or on the service sector that is quite important to the U.S, or targeting U.S. investments. This Anti-Corrosion Instrument can be compared to NATO's Article 5: One for all, all for one. But we're hearing from Hungary's president, Viktor Orbàn [and] the Czech prime minister, [Andrej Babiš], as well, both of them not exactly showing full support in terms of Greenland. So do you think consensus within the EU is actually possible? The support for Greenland, for Denmark, has a very, very strong support, not only in the European Union, but also from our partners from all around the world. So I'm sure that the European Union will and can react properly. What kind of hit do you think that the United States would realistically take from what you're proposing with this trade bazooka? It's important to show that we walk the talk, and that the EU can and wants to, and has the capacity to, move in this direction. And then, if that takes place, it will, of course, be in a way that hits sensitive products and sectors for the U.S. economy. President Trump, he ran his election campaign to improve the American economy and he loved tariffs because that would benefit jobs in the U.S. But he is actually now acting in a way that will lead the U.S. in the opposite direction. Once you introduce what you're suggesting, do you think he will just escalate things even further? Are you worried about that? We can see that passivity leads to escalation. So that's why it's important that we act, that we respond to this and speak the same language, because doing nothing is not the way forward. This tool, as I understand it, was initially created to be prepared if you needed to have a response to something China might do in the future. Did you ever imagine that you would be weighing whether to use it against the United States? No. And, of course, it's very, very sad that we are in this situation because the U.S. is our most important trading partner. It's our ally when it comes to security, and it has been so for decades. And I still, even though it's very difficult today, ... think we will have a common future together. Our CBC News colleagues and others are reporting that .... Prime Minister Mark Carney is considering sending soldiers to Greenland. Is that something that you would support, that the EU would like to see? It's up to Denmark and Greenland, of course. It's a question for them basically. But from my point of view, from our point of view, I think if we can co-operate and try to have a common approach to this, we will stay stronger. I wonder what you make, Karin, of the reporting that Donald Trump, you know, is taking the stand against Greenland because of the fact that he was not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? I mean, I can't find the words for such a ridiculous thing. What is the worst case scenario in your mind? I mean, do you think what is happening is some sort of negotiating tactic, or do you envision a scenario where the U.S. would actually try to take Greenland by force? I think we should take President Trump seriously and listen to what he is saying. But with the strong reactions, and if we walk the talk and if we act, as I have described, if we use the trade bazooka, and if we increase our willingness to show our military presence, of course, in the framework of NATO … I'm sure that this will not happen. Because so many people, also politicians, also representatives from Donald Trump's own party, understand that this is a very bad idea. And it's not only about Greenland [and] Denmark. It's about every country. Because this is a threat to the global world order, and borders should not be changed by violence or threats.