Every morning in Europe, we have breakfast with what the President of the United States, Donald Trump, has said or done during our early hours. It's as if he were omnipresent and everything revolves around him. Do you remember anything similar in your long career?
Of course, Trump is everywhere, constantly speaking and intervening. However, he cannot control everything in reality and does not read. So many things happen under his subordinates. But what I think about Trump is that his will and unique way of behaving are at the center stage of this Administration's theater. And in that sense, I believe there has never been a politician like him in the United States. Certainly not in my lifetime. Probably the most similar in many aspects, in his attitude towards allies, in foreign policy, in his paranoia, was Richard Nixon, whom I remember. I lived in Washington when he was president. And he, of course, broke the law, was on the verge of impeachment, and resigned. Nixon's crisis in 1971 was the closest thing to Trump's tariff policy. And, in terms of his personality, he was very dominant. So I think he is the figure most similar to Trump. Although I believe Nixon was significantly more intelligent and better informed about foreign policy in particular. And he did very important things, like the opening to China. But yes, I definitely think Nixon is the figure most similar to Trump that I have seen in my life.
However, in the relationship with China, it is very different...
That was a long time ago. At that time, for Nixon, the main enemy was the Soviet Union. They thought that if they could separate China from the Soviet Union, it would weaken the USSR and greatly strengthen the United States. At that time, China was a very weak and very, very poor country. And it turned out they were right: China's shift from the Soviet Union towards the United States spectacularly weakened the USSR. And China, in turn, developed much more than they had ever imagined. It was not a plan, as that happened in the 1970s, and they could not imagine today's China. So the success of that project, in a way, turned out to be a problem. This leads us to the current relationship, 50 years later, when China has become an adversary. But the interesting thing, one of the many confusions of this Trump Administration, is that they do not seem to have a clear idea of what they think of China. In the previous Trump Administration, in the then National Security Strategy, China was clearly presented as a kind of number one enemy. It was a competitor and strategic rival. Now, China is not portrayed in that way. The language of the new National Security Strategy is not particularly hostile towards Beijing. One of the surprises of this Administration has been that it is less hostile towards China than expected. Trump does not seem to consider China a really big threat.
And Russia? Because in those 50 years, we went from the USSR to Russia...
Trump has a very favorable opinion of Russia, that is very clear. In fact, the only part of the world for which the United States is essentially hostile is Europe. And this is not, to put it mildly, what we expected. It is not so surprising, but it is not what we expected. The Trump Administration feels that Europe is dangerous because it holds the same opinions and attitudes as the opposition in the United States regarding the rule of law, immigration, and even gender issues. They feel that Europe is a cultural enemy. That is why they are hostile towards Europe.
To what extent is this a unique feeling of Trump, or of some official in his Administration, or of the MAGA universe?
This Government is a kind of coalition of very different elements, and they do not form an integrated whole. There is Trump, who is an idiosyncratic, erratic, and very egotistical individual. He likes to make deals, does not have a grand strategy, and likes to increase his power. But then there is the MAGA base, and the cultural warriors, and the tech bros... So, for example, the hostility towards immigration is what the MAGA base feels, but the tech bros do not feel it. So it is a constant tug-of-war, and who wins at any given moment depends on what Trump thinks that day. I think the best parallel in history is what happened in the Roman Empire because the word of the emperor was always final, as long as he was alive and allowed to live. But he could not control everything, and there were very powerful figures. Provincial governors did many things that he could not control and had different interests. But occasionally, the emperor would intervene and say, 'This is what we are going to do.' I tend to think that Trump is more like Nero. That is his personality. Nero always wanted to be considered a very, very great artist. And Trump wants to be considered a great peacemaker. And, look, that is a good thing. One good thing about Trump is that he wants peace. He does not want war. I like that.
Trump does not like war, but he is flirting a lot with it in the Caribbean...
Because Venezuela is important from an electoral point of view. I have no idea what he plans to do regarding Venezuela, but my hunch is that he will not invade it. If it were a total war, they would obviously win. But then they would have to occupy the country and govern it. Venezuela is not a small country, and that is a really big commitment. There needs to be a plan for afterward, and they do not have one.
Is Trump using foreign policy to divert the attention of the American citizen from the economic situation?
The economy is not bad in the United States. But it is not very good either. The labor market is weak. It is not a disaster, but it is weak. Employment and unemployment would probably be significantly worse if they had not expelled so many immigrants. But the economy is not very strong, certainly not stronger than when he took over from Biden. Additionally, inflation has been quite strong. Undoubtedly, tariffs are part of it. Trump made a very clear promise: that he would lower prices, not that he would lower inflation, but that he would lower prices, which is an absurd promise. There is no easy way to lower prices once they have risen. So, although the promise was absurd, his base seems to have taken it seriously, and of course, it has not been fulfilled. On the contrary, prices have risen. Hence, people are complaining. That promise was not fulfilled.
And now it is affecting his popularity...
Trump says it is the strongest economy in history, and everyone can see that it is not. That is why his popularity has declined. And that could affect the Republicans in the midterm elections, which has scared them. Republicans are losing confidence in Trump. Their control over Congress is weakening. You can see it in some of their behaviors. So it will be interesting to see how he responds to this. He could do something traumatic at home or abroad to make people think he is back in control of the situation. His determination to achieve a peace agreement in Ukraine, I think, is partly due to that. He needs to show that he is achieving wonderful things.
Since you mention Ukraine, how do you view the decisive moment Europe is facing?
There are many open questions. The first is whether Trump and Putin reach an agreement that Americans consider acceptable and believe they can impose on Ukraine and Europe. That is the key. If such an agreement is reached, the question is: what would Europe do? We are facing extraordinary challenges. Europeans have not faced similar problems with an essentially hostile United States, a United States that is clearly more pro-Russian than pro-European. There are no precedents.
Do we Europeans also show our weaknesses with summits like the one on Thursday where we are unable to give the green light to the agreement with Mercosur and the use of Russian assets to provide a loan to Ukraine?
These two outcomes have been very disappointing. They show that the EU remains a collection of narrow-minded and self-centered nations, unable to see beyond their particular interests of the present and have a broader vision. The EU -indeed, the very idea of a free Europe- is under attack. It needs to demonstrate its ability to make new friends and defend itself from old enemies. The agreement with Mercosur was an opportunity for the former. The use of Russian assets to help its brutalized victim was an opportunity for the latter. The failures of the EU demonstrate that, unfortunately, it is unable to meet the needs of the time.
Where are we heading as Europeans then?
Europe always has the problem of collective leadership. The fragmentation of Europe is the big problem. Now, I must say that personally, I was very bothered by Brexit. I would like the United Kingdom to be part of the EU. I continue to write in favor of it. I believe that in the world we live in now, Europe is alone, and if Europe fractures, the world's great powers will destroy it. So I hope that Europeans find a way to cooperate and accept that there are some things in which a country does not get its way and in others it does. European cooperation is necessary - I won't say unity, but a truly intense cooperation - among the States. It is important to remember that, in the global context, all European countries are small countries. We are entering a world where, in 20 or 25 years, there will be three great powers: the United States, China, and India. So, if European States do not cooperate, they will not count for anything. That is the reality. And I want Europe to count for something because it represents something. Europe must unite because without it, Europe will be irrelevant.