BRUSSELS — After its defeat by the British in the First Opium War, the Qing dynasty signed a treaty in 1842 that condemned China to more than a hundred years of foreign oppression and colonial control of trade policy.   It was the first of what came to be known as “unequal treaties,” where the bullying military and technological heavyweight of the day imposed one-sided terms to try to slash back its massive trade deficit. Sound familiar? Fast-forward nearly two centuries, and the EU is starting to understand exactly how that feels. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s dash to Donald Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland last month to seal a highly unbalanced trade deal has raised fears among politicians and analysts that Europe has lost the leverage that it once thought it had as a leading global trade power.  Von der Leyen’s critics were quick to assert that accepting Trump’s 15 percent tariff on most European goods amounted to an act of “submission,” a “clear-cut political defeat for the EU,” and an “ideological and moral capitulation.” If she had hoped that would keep Trump at bay, a rude awakening was in store. With the ink barely dry on the trade deal, Trump doubled down on Monday by threatening to impose new tariffs on the EU over its digital regulations that would hit America’s tech giants. If the EU didn’t fall into line, the U.S. would stop exporting vital microchip technologies, he warned. His diatribe came less than a week after Brussels believed it had won a written guarantee from Washington that its digital rulebook — and sovereignty — were safe.  Trump can wield this coercive advantage because — just like the 19th century British imperialists — he holds the military and technological cards, and is well aware his counterpart lags miles behind in both sectors. He knows Europe doesn’t want to face Russian President Vladimir Putin without U.S. military back-up and cannot cope without American chip technology, so he feels he can dictate the trade agenda. EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič strongly implied last month that the deal with the U.S. was a reflection of Europe’s strategic weakness, and its need for U.S. support. “It’s not only about … trade: It’s about security, it is about Ukraine, it is about current geopolitical volatility,” he explained. The trade deal is a “direct function of Europe’s weakness on the security front, that it cannot provide for its own military security and that it failed to invest, for 20 years, in its own security,” said Thorsten Benner, director at the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin, who also pointed to failures to invest in “technological strength” and to deepen the single market.  Just like the Qing leadership, Europe also scorned the warning signs over many years. “We are paying the price for the fact we ignored the wake-up call we got during the first Trump administration — and we went back to sleep. And I hope that this is not what we are doing now,” Sabine Weyand, director-general for trade at the European Commission, told a panel at the European Forum Alpbach on Monday. She was speaking before Trump’s latest broadside on tech rules.   After its defeat by the British in the First Opium War, the Qing dynasty signed a treaty in 1842 that condemned China to more than a hundred years of foreign oppression and colonial control of trade policy. | History/Universal Images Group via Getty Images It is clear that Trump’s volatile tariff game is far from over, and the 27-nation bloc is bound to face further political affronts and unequal negotiating outcomes this fall. To prevent the humiliation from becoming entrenched, the EU faces a huge task to reduce its dependence on the U.S. — in defense, technology and finance. STORMY WATERS  The Treaty of Nanking, signed under duress aboard the HMS Cornwallis, a British warship anchored in the Yangtze River, obliged the Chinese to cede the territory of Hong Kong to British colonizers, pay them an indemnity, and agree to a “fair and reasonable” tariff. British merchants were authorized to trade at five “treaty ports” — with whomever they wanted.  The Opium War began what China came to lament as its “century of humiliation.” The British forced the Chinese to open up to the devastating opium trade to help London claw back the yawning silver deficit with China. It’s an era that still haunts the country and drives its strategic policymaking both at home and internationally. A key factor forcing the Qing dynasty to submit was its failure to invest in military and technological progress. Famously, China’s Qianlong Emperor told the British in 1793 China did not require the “barbarian manufactures” of other nations. While gunpowder and firearms were Chinese inventions, a lack of experimentation and innovation slowed their development — meaning Qing weapons were about 200 years behind British arms in design, manufacture and technology.   Similarly, the EU is now being punished for falling decades behind the U.S. Slashing defense spending after the Cold War kept European countries dependent on the U.S. military for security; complacency about technological developments means the EU now is behind its global rivals in almost all critical technologies. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer has, for his part, declared the beginning of a new world order — which he dubbed the “Turnberry system” — comparing the U.S.-EU trade accord to the post-war financial system devised at the New England resort of Bretton Woods in 1944.    TURBULENCE AHEAD  With his attack on Monday, Trump demonstrated scant regard for the EU’s desire to bracket out sensitive issues from last week’s non-binding joint statement. The vagueness of the four-page text, meanwhile, leaves room for him to press new demands or threaten retaliation if he deems that the EU is failing to keep its side of the bargain.  More humiliation could follow as the two sides try to work out details — from a tariff quota system on steel and aluminium to exemptions for certain sectors — that still need to be ironed out.   “This deal is so vague that there are so many points where conflicts could easily be escalated to then be used as justification for why other things will not follow through,” said Niclas Poitiers, a research fellow at the Bruegel think tank.    Asked what would happen if the EU were to fail to invest a pledged $600 billion in the U.S., Trump said earlier this month: “Well, then they pay tariffs of 35 percent.”  With his attack on Monday, Trump demonstrated scant regard for the EU’s desire to bracket out sensitive issues from last week’s non-binding joint statement. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images It’s a danger the EU is acutely aware of.  The European Commission argues the $600 billion simply reflects broad intentions from the corporate sector that cannot be enforced by bureaucrats in Brussels. But Trump could well use the investment pledge as a trigger point to gun for higher duties.   “We do expect further turbulence,” said a senior EU official, granted anonymity to speak candidly. But “we feel we have a very clear insurance policy,” they added.     What’s more, by accepting the agreement, sold by the EU executive as the “less bad” option following Trump’s tariff threats, Brussels has also shown that blackmail works. Beijing will be watching developments with interest — just as EU-China ties have hit a new low and Beijing’s dominance on the minerals the West needs for its green, digital and defense ambitions hand it immense geopolitical leverage.  ESCAPING IRRELEVANCE But what, if anything, can the bloc do to avoid prolonging its period of geopolitical weakness?  In the lead-up to the deal, von der Leyen repeatedly emphasized that the EU’s strategy in dealing with the U.S. should be built on three elements: readying retaliatory measures; diversifying trade partners; and strengthening the bloc’s single market.     For some, the EU needs to see the deal as a wake-up call to usher in deep change and boost the bloc’s competitiveness through institutional reform, as outlined last year in landmark reports penned by former European Central Bank head Mario Draghi and former Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta.    In response to the deal, Draghi issued a strongly-worded warning that Trump’s evident ability to force the bloc into doing his bidding is conclusive proof that it faces irrelevance, or worse, if it can’t get its act together. He also played up the failings on security. “Europe is ill-equipped in a world where geo-economics, security, and stability of supply sources, rather than efficiency, inspire international trade relations,” he said.   Eamon Drumm, a research analyst at the German Marshall Fund, also took up that theme. “Europe needs to think of its business environment as a geopolitical asset to be reinforced,” he said.  To do so, investments in European infrastructure, demand and companies are needed, Drumm argued: “This means bringing down energy prices, better putting European savings to use for investment in European companies and completing capital markets integration.”   In comments to POLITICO, French Europe Minister Benjamin Haddad also called for “investing massively in AI, quantum computing and green technologies, and protecting our sovereign industries, as the Americans do not hesitate to do.”   FREE TRADE For others, the answer lies in deepening and diversifying the bloc’s trade ties — Brussels insists the publication of its trade deal with the Mercosur bloc of South American countries is just around the corner, and it is eyeing deals with Indonesia, India and others this year. It has also signaled openness to intensifying trade with the Asia-focused CPTPP bloc, which counts Canada, Japan, Mexico, Australia and others as members.    “In addition to modernizing the [World Trade Organization], the EU must indeed focus on continuing to build its network of trade agreements with reliable partners,” said Bernd Lange, a German Social Democrat who heads the European Parliament’s trade committee.   “To stabilize the rules-based trading system, we should find a common position with democratically constituted countries,” added Lange.   Europe, said Drumm, faces a choice.  “Is it going to reinforce its position as a hub of free trade in a world where globalization is unwinding?” he asked. “Or is it just going to be a battlefield on which increasing competition between China and the United States plays out?” 

Daniel Harper is a British Iranian multimedia journalist, residing and working in the EU, specializing in migration, women’s rights and human rights. His work has appeared in Euronews, Balkan Insight, GAY Times, Insider, among other publications. After a three-day mourning period, the flags above Austria’s parliament were raised from half-mast, where they’d been lowered following last month’s fatal school shooting in the country’s second city of Graz. The shooting at the high school was the deadliest in the country’s history, leaving 10 dead and several injured. Notably, the assailant had used a shotgun and handgun he’d obtained legally, despite failing a psychological screening for his required military service. According to a small arms survey, Austria is the 14th most armed country in the world, with 30 firearms per 100 inhabitants. Yet, it has often shirked from gun reform — even after the terrorist attack of November 2020, which saw assault rifles fired in central Vienna. So, for the issue to raise to the top of the agenda now, speaks volumes as to just how far this fatal incident has shoved the political dial on the country’s long-standing ambivalence to gun reform. “Nothing we do, including what we have decided today, will bring back the 10 people we lost last Tuesday. But I can promise you one thing: We will learn from this tragedy,” Chancellor Christian Stocker said, echoing that very sentiment a press conference held after the shooting. Question is, will Austria’s government finally be spurred into action? Austria’s hunting culture means gun ownership is deeply engrained in its society. Currently, 130,000 people — roughly 1.4 percent of the population — hold mandatory hunting licenses. And anyone who’s been to Austria can attest to the numerous animal heads and trophy antlers hanging on the walls of pubs and chalets. Moreover, two large weapons manufacturers, Steyr and Glock, are both headquartered in the country. And their lobbying of pro-gun political parties within the conservative faction has helped prevent previous gun reform attempts. “There is a big hunters lobby,” said Professor Roger von Laufenberg, managing director of the Vienna Center for Societal Security explained. “Especially [for] the major political parties. The Conservative Party, for example, has traditionally had a large share of voters [who are] hunters, which is why this was not really perceived as an issue for so long.” The last time gun laws were reformed in any major way in Austria was in 1997, following an EU directive imposing tighter restrictions on gun ownership — a change that, according to a report by the British Journal of Psychology, led to a drop in the rate of firearm suicides and homicides. Decades later, one of the main reforms now being discussed is raising the minimum age to buy firearms from 21 to 25. Other restrictions the chancellor suggested include raising the minimum age to own specific firearms like handguns, having gun permits expire every eight years, strengthening psychological testing and making it mandatory, sharing information across governmental agencies, as well as introducing a four-week waiting period for the delivery of a first weapon. These are all in addition to a suggested expansion of psychological support in schools across the country over the next three years. A woman leaves a candle at a makeshift memorial site near the school where several people died in a school shooting, on June 10, 2025 in Graz, southeastern Austria. | Georg Hochmuth/AFP via Getty Images This is a dramatic shift in how gun reform has been addressed by the government in previous years. Under current laws, anyone over the age of 18 can purchase certain shotguns and rifles without a permit, while other weapons, like hand pistols, require a three-day waiting period and a psychological analysis. The issue of psychological testing is especially a point of focus, as the assailant in the school shooting had passed the test to own a handgun. The process that’s drawing particular criticism is that a person is only tested once in their lifetime and never reassessed. Furthermore, despite the assailant failing his psychological exam for compulsory military service, this information was not shared with other agencies, including the police. Interestingly, just a couple weeks before the Graz shooting, Austria’s Green Party had put forward a proposal aimed at reforming gun laws. But the motion for a resolution was postponed with the votes of Austria’s coalition government. The proposed motion set out much of the same guidelines the chancellor shared with the press — tighter background checks, greater monitoring of private gun sales and a permanent gun ban for those who have restraining orders against them. The difference was that these reforms were specifically aimed at combating violence against women and girls — another problem Austria’s been dealing with for a long time. According to Green member Meri Disoksi, who proposed the reform, “almost one in two perpetrators of violence against women suffers from a mental illness” — hence the greater need for stricter psychological checks. Similarly, an Institute of Conflict Research analysis on femicides in Austria between 2010 to 2020 found that of the women assaulted with a firearm, 62.6 percent died. Even the use of illegal firearms involved with femicides has increased from 2016 to 2020, according to the study. Markus Leinfellner of the right-wing Freedom Party of Austria (FPO) — a party that often blocks gun reform legislation — had criticized the proposal, speaking out against the suggestion of psychological assessments for gun owners every five years, saying it would place a financial burden on gun owners and lead to an increased workload for psychologists. It’s evident just how much the Graz shooting has changed the conversation and forced the issue of gun reform back into play, as even FPO leader Herbert Kickl didn’t come out against the chancellor’s recent proposals. He simply told lawmakers: “I don’t think now is the time to pledge or announce that this or that measure will solve a problem.” Of course, it remains to be seen whether the proposed gun reforms will eventually pass. But with Stocker now promising the country will learn from this tragedy, it seems Austria has been forced to confront the consequences of being a society so intertwined with gun culture after decades of political ambivalence. The shooting in Graz has finally pierced the illusion that legal gun ownership guarantees safety, and the country’s political parties can’t sit on the fence any longer.