Europe and the big powers: be strategic

 

Europe and the Illusion of Permanent Allies

Victor Ângelo

International Security Advisor. Former UN Under-Secretary-General

Published on: 17 Jul 2026

This week, yet another uncomfortable question arose regarding the Hormuz crisis. What legitimacy does a big power have to treat the chokepoints of global trade – and the States that depend upon them – as mere means to its own ends? On Monday, the President of the United States proclaimed himself the "Guardian of the Strait of Hormuz" and imposed a 20% tax on commercial transit through this maritime corridor. On Tuesday, he backtracked and annulled the measure. He did so under pressure from his Gulf allies.

The episode revealed a lack of strategic discernment – an essential quality in any leadership. Acumen is not hesitation, cowardice, or tactical calculation. It is the ability to assess the consequences of a decision before announcing it; to distinguish between what is legally possible, politically acceptable, and strategically sustainable; and to act in a manner that preserves credibility, rather than squandering it on incongruous gestures. A leader with discernment knows that power is not solely measured by the capacity to impose a measure, but also by the aptitude to foresee the resistance it will trigger.

The ephemeral tax of the self-proclaimed "guardian" was an example of imprudence: imposed as a fait accompli, without a recognised legal basis, without consulting the directly affected partners, and without a serious assessment of the Gulf States' reaction. The measure collapsed not out of generosity, but because the affected countries possessed the power to reverse it. The International Maritime Organisation confirmed there was no legal basis for this levy. The problem was not merely the decision; it was the public demonstration that a great power can announce a global measure and discover the following day that it lacks the conditions to sustain it. Consequently, it undermines trust in its word.

President Trump’s decision should not be read as an isolated episode or a personal eccentricity. It belongs to a broader pattern: that of great powers transforming interdependence into instruments of pressure. It is in Africa that this pattern is most clearly visible. All promise protection, investment, security, or development. All invoke the sovereignty of their partners. Yet, in far too many cases, the outcome is an asymmetrical relationship: African countries surrender resources, strategic positions, or decision-making leeway; great powers reap the advantages; and political promises remain contingent upon convenience.

In February 2025, the President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) offered Washington access to the country's critical minerals in exchange for security guarantees. Partnership agreements between the two followed, signed in December of that year: the United States gained preferential access to Congolese mineral concessions and assumed the obligation to protect the sovereignty of the eastern DRC. On the American side, the pact did not translate into action. Washington limited itself to approving sanctions against Rwanda, which it accuses of sponsoring the rebels.

In Zimbabwe, the Chinese conglomerate Huayou Cobalt inaugurated the continent's first lithium sulphate plant in 2026. Zimbabwe banned the export of raw lithium to force local processing; it was China, not Zimbabwe, that built the processor – thereby capturing the enormous value of this project.

In Mali, Sudan, and the Central African Republic, the Russian Africa Corps protects military regimes in exchange for gold. These pacts are presented as exercises in sovereignty and protection of these States, but the result is akin to that observed in Kinshasa and Harare. Local partners pay with natural resources, dependence, and a loss of autonomy; great powers extract value; and the promised protection rarely equates to enduring security for the populations.

Europe must draw a clear warning from these examples. No great power is a full, automatic, and unconditional ally of Europe. Each acts according to its own interests:

• Washington seeks to preserve its geopolitical primacy.

• Beijing wishes to control value chains, markets, and critical technologies.

• Moscow aims to limit European autonomy and exploit its fundamental vulnerabilities.

Europe may cooperate with all powers when interests align. However, it must do so with the necessary political vision.

Thus, it is fundamental to abandon strategic naïvety. Strategic discernment demands that Europe maintain open channels, but reduce critical dependencies; cooperate when advantageous, but prepare alternatives; negotiate with seriousness, but without submission.

Washington may remain an indispensable partner in matters of security, but it must no longer be treated as the automatic guarantor of the European order. China may be a commercial and mutual investment partner, but it must equally be viewed as a systemic political competitor in industry, technology, and the control of raw materials. Russia may one day return to being an interlocutor, but as long as it employs coercion, threats, and military aggression as political methods, it must be viewed with suspicion.

European autonomy cannot be a mere rhetorical formula. The only alliances upon which Europe can rely in a stable manner are, first and foremost, those it manages to build within itself – on a foundation of genuine, not merely declarative, unity – and, subsequently, with blocs and economies of comparable weight.

It is not a matter of exchanging dependence on Washington for dependence on Beijing or Moscow. Nor is it about fostering unnecessary enmities with the great powers. It is about recognising that, in an order dispersed among rival poles, without a single authority capable of enforcing international rules, Europe must face the great powers as what they structurally already are: competing entities whose interests may align with European ones at certain moments and diverge profoundly at others.

For Europe, this means one cannot confuse diplomatic proximity with peace; markets with dependence; and protection with tutelage. If Europe fails to learn these distinctions, it risks finding itself in the same league as those illusorily sovereign States, where the essential decisions regarding their security, digital systems, energy, industry, and prosperity run the risk of being made outside their own capitals.

On the situation in DRC (Congo)

Regrettably, chaos and misery are the two words closely associated with the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). A good part of this enduring disaster comes from the political leadership in Kinshasa. They manipulate the institutions and fire up the instability and the divisions for their own corrupt gain.

The presidential electoral process has very much been an illustration of all the ills associated with such leaders. As a process, it is not credible at all. But it has brought a ray of change. And that, for now, seems enough to keep the people tranquil. The Congolese wanted, above all, to get rid of Joseph Kabila and his henchmen. The announced outcome of the election, as disputed as it can be, might also be a step in that direction. A very timid step, it’s recognised, with a rather weak new President, but still, at the eyes of many, a step forward.

That’s why the friends of Congo, both in the region and elsewhere, ought to be very prudent in their approach to the current situation.

Let's trust the DRC civil society organisations

The presidential electoral process in the Democratic Republic of Congo is a mess. On purpose, of course, to allow the outgoing power circle, led by President Joseph Kabila, to manipulate its outcome and guarantee a safer retirement. Chaotic, it’s true, but it could have been worse, another tragedy for the martyred population.

The process is not transparent at all. Not credible, I should add. However, the key concern at this stage is to avoid new eruptions of violence. And try to bring a minimum of acceptability to the results.

We should trust the Congolese civil society organisations. In particular, those linked to the Catholic Church and to the popular electoral observation. They are strong enough and very courageous. They should be able to force the electoral commission – independent only on name – to recount the votes and be true to the voters. Not easy, but that’s the way forward. Everything else would be a return to the undemocratic practises the country has experienced for so long.

It’s also clear this is not the time for external actors to be dictating possible courses of action. No time either for undiplomatic pressure. It would not work. And it would not respect the determination of the Congolese people to find their own path to a more stable and democratic nation. Outside partners of the DRC can only express moral support for the domestic organisations that are genuinely committed to addressing the electoral manipulation.

Denis Mukwege deserves the recognition

The Congolese medical doctor Denis Mukwege is this year´s laureate of Europe´s Sakharov Prize. This great honour recognises Dr Mukwege´s work in Eastern Congo in support of women and girls that have been victims of mass rape. Rape is in that part of Africa a weapon of terror. Women and girls are caught in between the rebel groups and the government forces and end up by paying a terrible price. Dr Mukwege has been their medical helper, both also their voice and advocate. He has done it with great bravery and a very strong sense of duty.

Today we can only say that this year´s Sakharov Prize, decided by the European Parliament, makes justice to a great African.

It also calls the world´s attention to the plight of women and children in conflict situations. It is in many ways an appeal for more action against that type of violence. 

Central Africa

The Central African Republic (CAR) is now a failed state.

The capital city, Bangui, is controlled by armed groups of uncertain origin. They are most likely dominated by warlords from Southern Darfur and Eastern Chad. They have little to do with CAR’s main ethnic groups but they are allied to Central Africans from the North-Eastern border areas. These are Muslims in a country that is largely Christian.

Besides the capital, there are other armed groups and several “self-defence” committees. But there is no central authority, no law and order, no administration and no modern economy. It is just chaos and extreme hardship.

The situation can easily spill over into some of neighbouring countries. They are also very fragile. They could become the next prey of the roaming armed men.  

The African Union has pledged to send a peacekeeping force to the country. It will be difficult for the AU to be able to mobilise the force and the resources required. It will also be a very delicate mission because of the religious divide that is now taking place, for the first time in the history of CAR.

The international community should understand that the country needs, urgently, not at the pace the AU can mobilise itself, a very robust international force, with full executive powers.

It is the survival of CAR’s population that is, first and foremost, at stake. But not only. It is an entire region. A region that is already the least stable of Africa. 

The African Ellipse of Instability

I was asked by the media a number of questions about the recent developments in the Central African Republic (CAR). I have advised them to read the research paper I published last year, under the sponsorship of NUPI – the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs –about the instability in that region of Africa. I mentioned, in particular, the “ellipse of instability”, an expression I coined to describe the security risks that exist in a vast no-man’s land along the borders of Chad, Sudan, CAR, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The paper is available at the following link:

http://english.nupi.no/content/download/308614/1068211/version/1/file/NUPI+Report-SIP-7-Angelo-McGuinness.pdf

I suggest the reader to have a look at it.

CAR and its rebels

François Bozizé, who has been the President of the Central African Republic (CAR) for the last ten years, has now fled out of the country. He just crossed the Oubangui River and found himself on the DRC bank, just opposite Bangui. From here to the capital of DRC, Kinshasa, is a very long, tough trek.

The rebels from Séléka are now in control. They are basically young men from the North-eastern regions of the country, many of them with a Muslim background. But this not a religious inspired rebellion. It is once more ethnicity and regionalism taking hold in a country that has never been able to find the right balance between its different ethnic groups.

The UN has a number of personnel on the ground. Many of them are political officers. This presence is related to the fact that the UN member states have decided, some seven years ago, to include CAR in the priority list for peace building efforts. I sincerely believe that the new developments would require the UN Security Council to think hard about the future of the UN mission in CAR.