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.

We are being treated as vassal States

This is an exceptional moment in our contemporary history. The pandemic is challenging many of our long-held views and opening the door to a number of discussions about the future. One such discussion is about the role of values and principles in international relations.

I am one of those who thinks that big powers are putting aside the norms that have regulated the relations among nations. I see them as trying to reduce others to the status of vassal states. This is the current trend, for instance, when it comes to the United States. Washington is looking at Europe as subordinated allies, as countries that must unconditionally follow the American policy decisions in matters of foreign affairs.

European sovereignty is being threatened by such an approach.

In the circumstances, the European leaders have decided to pretend that is not the case. They turn a blind eye and just hope that as we get into next year, there will a change of leadership in Washington and, consequently, a more amicable attitude towards Europe. I am not sure. In 2021, the leadership might indeed be played by a set of different actors. But I see the trend as deeper than just a passing option linked to the Trump Administration. I sense it is structural and strategic. It comes from the dangerous competition that is growing a bit out of control between the United States and China. That competition will define the coming years. Both sides will be looking for support in the community of nations. And their natural tendency, like any giant, is to force other countries to take sides. The United States and China will be pressing others into the category of client-states. 

This is a development that the global crisis is accentuating. We cannot feign to ignore it.  

Each country decides about its political options, including its international alliances

Sovereignty belongs to the people. This is a major political principle. It is a key pillar of today´s international relations. I might come from a small country, but the direction things take at home is my prerogative and of my fellow citizens. We choose. In today´s world, and particularly after the decolonisation and the fall of the Soviet empire, there is no need to ask for the neighbours ‘permission to opt for this or that political choice. It is our right. It is the right of each countries ‘citizens. We might be wrong but in the end we are the ones that will pay for the consequences. And we are ready for that. The only rule we have to take into account is about remaining within international values and conventions. We can decide about making an alliance left or right. We cannot however decide to violate human rights codes or discriminate against minorities, for instance. It is important to keep that in mind. 

Respect the national choices and you have peace

Ukraine should be able to decide about its own future. That´s the basic rule when it comes to national sovereignty. And sovereignty is still a basic tenet in terms of defining the relations between states. Even in out interdependent world, even in a more integrated Europe, sovereignty is, in the end, the fundamental pillar of any nation. 

Are we moving back to the old approach to national sovereignty?

This morning I attended a discussion about the current meaning of national sovereignty in Europe. The discussants recognised that we live now in a context of limited and shared sovereignty. As members of the EU, the countries have transferred some of their national powers to the Commission or the Council. And they have also agreed that some key decisions do require the consensus of the membership. These have been important steps towards a supranational approach to the common good.

Everybody seemed to agree that the trend towards pooled State sovereignty will continue and that there will more co-responsibility in the future and less decisions based on a narrow approach to national interests. 

I think it is good to have an optimistic view of EU´s collective will. That´s what will take us forward.

But I am not sure about the next few years. European countries give the impression they are moving back to the old views about sovereignty. That will certainly be a wrong direction. However, one should be aware of the facts. And be prepared for less. Even when we aim at more.

On people and power

The world's political environment has changed rapidly since the beginning of this century. This is in many ways related to the massive access to information and the widespread usage of low cost, accessible means of communication. The democratisation of information enhanced the citizen's awareness, self-esteem, sense of force, public participation and leverage.  Everybody is connected, has an opinion and is not afraid of voicing it, if necessary. Fast, power seems to be a click away from each individual. It has become accessible. This means, for many, a new approach towards power as people got convinced that politics is an easy job, accessible, and that they could as well as be the prime minister of their own country or the secretary-general of the UN. The symbolism and distance of power have been lost and the street turns out to be the new seat of authority.

The fact of the matter is that political leaders can no longer ignore public opinion. Even to pretend to be listening is no longer enough. If you are in charge, you better be on guard and listen!

This change has also influenced the way international affairs are conducted. Here, as in national politics, we notice the emergence of a different approach with the individual – men and women – at the centre of the global concerns. Let's take as an example the area of security, as this is a field where the concepts of sovereignty and national security, which are vague and distant for each person, have always dominated. As we moved deeper into the new century, the emphasis on human security, which is about protecting each one of us from all kinds of threats, gained ground and became an important component of the international debate.

In different words, the individual is now the main feature of the new political paradigm, both on the domestic and the international front: the citizen matters more than ever. Policy is defined taking each one of us in mind. At least, it should be, if one wants to remain in power. 

The first decade of the 21st century ended up by being deeply traumatised by the 9/11 events resulting in key western countries becoming heavily engaged in military campaigns in faraway lands, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. In my opinion, these are the last large scale interventions of the West, the final manifestations of a world that is no longer sustainable and acceptable, as sovereign debt, defence cuts and new international power relations make it clear. 

The 2000s was also a period when the different regions of the world gained greater political awareness of their own characteristics and sought to take charge of their own agenda. The launching of NEPAD, in 2001, is an illustration of such trend: Africa decided to change the way it related with the outside world. From then on, the objective became to take care of its own problems and be able to set its specific path towards the future. 

This is also a time of power shifts leading to the consolidation of new centres of influence. The old world’s authority is being challenged by the emerging powers.

As the French philosopher Michel Foucault used to say, power is not a fixed commodity, but a dynamic relationship that constantly changes. It is changing fast today.