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.

Mr Trump and his political brother

Mugabe and Trump, children of the same monster

Victor Angelo

 

Despite the welcome news from Georgia, the essence of American political week has left many of us stunned on this side of the Atlantic. Among other things, it has reminded us that democracy is a never-ending struggle that can never be considered as definitely won. It has also shown us that solid institutions make it possible to defend democracy when attacked by demagogues, opportunists, charlatans, would-be dictators, or mere thugs. But beware, for we have also seen some among these people trying to use the workings of the institutions to try to consummate the assault on power.

At the centre of the anti-democratic onslaught is, as is well known, the infamous Donald Trump. Curiously, as I followed his manoeuvres, I was reminded of the late Robert Mugabe, who had been at the head of Zimbabwe for decades. It may seem unreasonable to put Trump and Mugabe in the same bag. Especially since Mugabe was an educated politician, skilled in diplomacy and knowledgeable in geopolitical intricacies. It is difficult to compare a tyrant whose official behaviour made one think of the image one has of a Scottish aristocrat, while his acolytes eliminated opponents of the regime, with an egomaniac, who behaves like a brainless ruffian. So, I do not compare. But Trump's phone call to demand, over an hour of barely-contained threats and anger, that the Georgian election official "find" - invent - the number of votes needed to falsify the results, and place the loser as the winner, would not fall behind the electoral fraud that Mugabe used to orchestrate. When I have raised the issue of cheating on a number of occasions, the Zimbabwean leader has always told me that anyone who is on the perch, and lets the victory slip away, should be seen as a political fool. Now he, fool, was not.

As Trump considers himself a genius, he cannot accept defeat. Especially against someone he considers weak, a sleepy old fellow. Mugabe, too, looked down on his opponents with great contempt. The same line with various nuances actually unites the dictators.

I never imagined that an American president would make me think of the despots I found in lost corners of the world. I am equally concerned when I see senators and members of the House of Representatives supporting, submissively or opportunistically, Trump's slippage and coup attempts. My concern rises to the level of the nightmare when I notice that millions of American citizens obsessively support these anti-democratic attempts. The conclusion is terrifying: an important part of American society is imbecilely radicalised. There is a latent danger of violence here, both internally and on the international stage. The profoundly serious disorder that has now taken place in Washington, instigated by the ruffian, makes me fear the future.

In view of this, the EU must be prudent in its relations with the US. The next few years - for as long as the Biden administration lasts - may just be a brief time of common sense, in a more complex and worrying political landscape. Next time, it will be possible for the presidency to be taken by any successor to today's coup plotter, same style but in a more intelligent version. In time, such a leader could take the country into international confrontation, dragging Europeans into this madness. What happened in Afghanistan or Iraq, with Europeans on a leash, would be seen, in comparison, as simple fighting between rival neighbourhoods.

The EU must use Joe Biden's mandate to strengthen its autonomy in vital areas of domestic and international politics. This means maintaining a cordial but more balanced and progressively emancipated relationship with the US. I, therefore, believe that strengthening European cohesion, in its different dimensions, must be an absolute priority for the next four years. It is not an easy task, especially after the revival of nationalisms due to the pandemic and in view of the lean period ahead, but it is a task that must be conducted. The planned Conference on the Future of Europe, a process which requires the participation of citizens and needs to be quickly reborn from the ashes, must also contribute to this.

 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

Robert Mugabe

Robert Mugabe passed away this morning.

I spent four years of my professional life (2000-2004) in close contact with him. During that time, I met President Mugabe frequently. In the end, on the eve of my departure, he came back to Harare from the province, for a final meeting and goodbyes.

I was then the UN representative in Zimbabwe.  

We disagreed on many things, but we kept a cordial rapport. I am not sure he has learned anything from me. But I did, from him. Among them, on this day, I will recall a couple of them.

First, leaders should not remain for too long in power. If that happens, time changes the positives into disasters. And what people keep in their minds is the negative tail end. Many will remember Robert Mugabe for that, the tragedy the country has become under his presidency and beyond.

Time limits are essential for democracy to be sustained.

Second, politics is about the control of power. And people in power, if allowed, will do anything to keep such control. Anything, indeed. Mugabe has destroyed Zimbabwe’s economy as a way of undermining his opponents. No price was too high for him to stay in power.

That’s why the building of democracy calls for strong institutions and an energetic private sector economy. Institutions go beyond individuals and bring balance. They counter authoritarian tendencies coming from those on the top of the executive pyramid. And people must be able to find alternative livelihoods outside the State.

Mugabe was also a hero for many, in terms of Africa's liberation. Maybe, that should be the main emphasis of any comment about his life, on this day of his passing.

Zimbabwe and the regime's savagery

In the afternoon I was on the phone with a Zimbabwean friend based in Harare. We discussed the recent human rights violations and the police brutality. All that is unacceptable and shows that President Mnangagwa is not able to respond to the deep crisis the country is in. Old habits die hard. And the President is going back to what he has known all his life, under the leadership of Old Robert: violent repression of popular discontent. That can only bring more suffering and misery to the country. It is very sad. I add my voice to the condemnation of such acts of tyranny and to the lack of respect for the people of Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe's distress

Unfortunately, Zimbabwe is again in the news headlines for the very wrong reasons. 

This past week has seen mass protests, violence, misery and death. As in the past, the government responded to unrest with extreme and unjustified force. Basic human rights are simply ignored. The regime is brutal, as ruthless as it has been in past similar situations. It’s unclear how many people have been killed by the police and the soldiers.

Zimbabweans have been under tremendous suffering, unimaginable hardship, for the best part of the last two decades. That´s a long national crisis, with a very heavy toll. The leadership has been inconsiderately inhumane.

And the little ray of hope that the new President had brought, after the departure of Robert Mugabe, appears now to have become a very sad illusion. Key democrats feel devastated by the new dramatic events. And as I write this evening, the situation is still getting worse.

Very sad.

Post-elections period in Zimbabwe

It would be wise for the EU to accept the assessment made by the African Union regarding the Zimbabwe elections of 31 July. That assessment can also be combined with the findings of the Zimbabwean Electoral Support Network, a consortium of NGOs that deployed 7,000 observers throughout the country. We have then a more balanced opinion. EU can then state that it follows that balance, based on the judgement made by credible Africans, and express its willingness to constructively engage with the new government in Harare. Constructive engagement with anyone that matters is better than negative criticism. 

Repeating ourselves about Zimbabwe

Today I have to go back to the Zimbabwe issue.

After serving in the country for four years, I left Harare at the end of 2004. Now, almost nine years later, and on the eve of the presidential elections, I listen to the political discourse and see that the themes and the worries are exactly the same. 

But not only on the Mugabe and Tsvangirai camps.

SADC, the association of Southern African States, the EU and others in the international community keep saying today what they were already telling us nine or more years ago: this time, we need proper elections, this time we will not accept fraud, this time it has to be different.

And we can only respond what we have said many times in the past: poor Zimbabwe!

Elections Zimbabwean style

On 31 July Zimbabweans will be offered a new chance of being robbed. Indeed, on that day presidential elections will take place. And the Electoral Commission, appointed by good old Robert and loyal to the regime interests, will do again what they have done in 2002, 2005 and 2008: make sure that the Mugabe camp steals the elections. The Electoral Commissioners are very expert at that job. I have observed and also implemented many elections in Africa and elsewhere. I have never seen an institutional machinery so smart as the one in Zimbabwe that can organise chaos, put in place rules and legal obstacles, and create all conditions for the old man to be “elected” in a way that looks good enough.

I would love to be wrong this time.