When the United States slapped a 25% charge on aluminum and EU metal in mid -March, it fired the opening saves in a business combat among the many lengthy -standing allies that subsequently seen the 25% charges slapped on EU automobile imports within the United States and a basic charge of 10% on different imports. EU officers, captured between diplomatic indignation and the financial realities of safeguarding the EU industries, introduced a collection of countermeasures, which have been suspended, following the president of the United States Donald Trump, proclaimed a 90 -day break on a tour of so -called mutual charges, which might have raised the withdrawal of 10% to twenty%.
But that is removed from the EU and we’ve blocked the horns on commerce.
From hen to manufacturing of plane, a collection of financial skimps have dotted the historical past of the transatlantic alliance.
This assembly reveals indicators of doable escalation nicely past earlier business waste, nonetheless, with providers and specifically the expertise that enter the Battlefield, following the commercial surplus in the services enjoyed by the United States on the EU.
The Chicken War – US 1 / EU 1
In 1962, in front of a flood of economic imports of American chicken, the European Economic Community (EEC) – then including France, Western Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg – undertook a decisive action by imposing tariffs for US poultry.
The move had an immediate impact: American chicken exports to Europe, in particular in western Germany – a key target market – have collapsed.
The United States estimated its losses to $ 46 million a year, while the EEC claimed that the figure was closer to $ 19 million. Gatt – the precursor of the WOP – in the end was established on a compromise figure: $ 26 million in damage.
With blocked negotiations, Washington opted for retaliation. It has imposed rates for a value of about $ 26 million on a series of European goods, including trucks, brandy and Dextrina.
In the end, neither parts emerged as a clear winner. Europe paid a lower price than initially expected, while the United States have obtained a financial leverage through its targeted rates.
The Banana War – US 1 / EU 0
The so -called “Banana Wars” have marked one of the longest -running commercial disputes between Brussels and Washington, lasting over 15 years.
In 1993, the EU adopted a preferential commercial regime that promotes bananas exports from ACP countries – a group made up of former European colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific – as part of a strategy aimed at supporting fragile economies.
However, the United States questioned the decision, claiming that he unjustly disadvantaged some of his multinationals who were the main actors in the global trade in bananas.
The case was brought by the United States to the WOP which in 1997 condemned the EU. In 1998, the EU modified its import system, but the United States believed that this was not enough. He reacted with EU’s export rates as French bags and Italian pecorino, collecting up to $ 191 million.
It was not until 2009 that the EU agreed to lower its customs functions on bananas from € 176 to € 114 per tonne.
The Beef Hormone War – US 0 / EU 1
What started in 1989 as a public health measure quickly intensified in another large transatlantic commercial dispute. That year, the EEC has imposed the ban on the import of beef treated with artificial growth hormones, citing consumer safety problems. The decision actually closes exports of cattle meat from Australia, Canada and the United States.
ANNOUNCEMENTWashington and Ottawa have challenged the WHC measurement. A decade later, in 1999, the OMC sided with the complaints, granting the United States the right to impose retaliation rates for the goods of the EEC – which at that point had turned into the European Union (EU) – for a value of $ 116.8 million per year.
The sanctions have affected some European totemic exports including French Roquefort, Italian and Spanish Hams and Belgian chocolates.
After more than two decades of difficulty, the dispute was finally resolved in 2011: the EU agreed to gradually expand its shares for beef treated by high quality by the United States; In return, Washington raised its punitive rates.
Infinite history: Boeing / Airbus-US 0 / EU 0
For 17 years, the EU and the United States have been blocked in an aspra battle for state subsidies to their respective aerospace giants: Airbus and Boeing.
ANNOUNCEMENTThe saga began with an agreement from 1992 designed to regulate government support for the two aircraft giants. But in 2004, Washington had dissatisfied, accusing the EU of unjustly subsidily subsidiating. The United States retired from the agreement and launched a formal complaint to the WTT.
What followed was a legal and diplomatic clash, which reached the peak during the first administration of Trump. In 2019, the OMC authorized the United States to impose rates on EU goods and services for a value of almost $ 7.5 billion per year.
A year later, in 2020, the pendulum oscillated in favor of the EU. The OMC has granted Brussels the right to impose rates on US imports in response to the subsidies received by Boeing.
In 2021 a turning point was announced: both sides agreed to suspend the rates, marking a temporary respite. However, Détento will last only until 2026.
ANNOUNCEMENTThe First War in Aluminum and Steel – US 0 / EU 0
The dispute began in 2018, when the Trump administration imposed large rates on the imports of steel and aluminum, citing national security problems like today. The EU responded quickly, presenting a complaint to the WOP and imposing countermeasures with US goods for a value of 2.8 billion euros, including iconic products such as bourbon, motorcycles and orange juice.
The stall situation that lasted until 2021, when both sides – under the Biden administration – agreed to suspend the rates in a move, greeted as a step towards restoring transatlantic trust.
However, that fragile peace has now revealed itself. With 25% of the US rates in force from March 2025.
Game, set up and match?
What distinguishes the current commercial stall – apart from the intensity of the controversy – is the apparent departure from the scene of the World Commerce Organization (OMC) as a referee.
ANNOUNCEMENTTraditionally, as the above examples show, the disputes would be channeled through the OMC, the multilateral institution designed to manage and mediate global commercial tensions.
But the United States are hindering panel appointments that determines the Omanc disputes and has declared “mutual” rates against more than half of the members of the body.
A look at the Homeric Commerce wars between the EU and the United States will remind us that the multilateral organization or its predecessor The Gatt has been at the forefront in the resolution of disputes in the past.
The past examples also show that, even where there could be a winner on paper, nobody emerges as a true winner of a commercial war.
ANNOUNCEMENT
