On Nov. 7, 2024,  European Union leaders gathered in Budapest, Hungary in the looming shadow of Trump’s recent presidential victory to discuss many key issues exacerbated by his win. Across the EU, his victory has been met with mixed feelings, with those on the right celebrating and toasting to champagne, while the rest ask themselves what might happen next… All in all, the recent EU Budapest meeting concluded that Trump’s reelection will open a door to unwavering uncertainty for Europe with challenges ahead on the topics of security, trade and the economy. 

Trump’s reelection has already reopened up many divisions within the EU, especially related to various security issues. To start off, many countries in the EU have already had a rocky relationship with Trump on the topic of security dating back to his first term. Evidently since 2016, Trump has expressed that he would not defend European allies unless they meet NATO targets on defense spending, and he has stood by this with his new America First plan. During the recent Budapest summit, some powers such as Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who publicly took victory laps after Trump’s win, stated that: “Europe should take more responsibility for its peace and security. To be blunt, we cannot wait for the Americans to protect us.” French President Emmanuel Macron also notably took a similar stance by stating that this is the push Europe finally needs to build up cooperation on defense and not become a weak “herbivore” surrounded by “carnivores.” 

Other leaders within the EU also support the plan for Europe to build up more independence, but not for the sake of forging closer ties to Trump like Orban advocated for. Instead, many leaders believe that since Trump’s previous term brought so much volatility and unpredictability to the U.S. and Europe relationship, it is ever so  important for Europe to maintain unity, strength, and a degree of political independence this time around. For example, Luxembourg’s Luc Friedan urged that the EU should seek mutual dialogue, but not give up its principles when facing Trump. Regardless of the widespread divisions within the EU related to Trump’s win, it is clear that all European leaders support the consensus to strengthen their strategic political autonomy to build up resistance to external conflicts

Another major area of discussion during the Budapest summit was the U.S. and Ukraine. After Trump’s win, he has notably stated that he would make a peace plan to end the war between Ukraine and Russia. However, many EU countries have become increasingly fearful of this political agenda because it could possibly pressure Ukrainian leadership into an unfavorable peace deal that would benefit Russia but leave Ukraine in a vulnerable position once again. Moreover, the current U.S. political landscape has exacerbated these issues, as seen by the Biden administration’s caution in relation to Ukraine and Russia, which has translated into a slower delivery of weapons and aid. Thus, many EU leaders and Ukrainians themselves are fearful that Trump’s agenda could translate into ending all aid to Ukraine. However, exacerbating divisions again, Hungary’s Orban has taken a differing stance by stating that the EU must accommodate Trump’s plan for Ukraine at all costs. But, it is clear that despite Trump’s perceived flowery rhetoric, the conflict cannot end overnight, and his agenda is a huge gamble into the unknown. Thus, the general view across the EU (with the exception of Orban) is that no matter what course America takes, they must remain firmly on Ukraine’s side to contain Putin’s expansionism. 

The prospect of U.S. tariffs and trade also weighs heavily on the minds of Europeans. Trump has made his position on tariffs extremely clear to the EU as he seeks to raise them to a significant extent. One of the major driving factors of this decision is that Trump believes that the U.S. has much lower tariff rates than the EU, such as the EU’s 10% tariff on passenger cars compared to the U.S.’s 2.5% rate. To add to this, the U.S. trade deficit with the EU has also risen to 230 billion dollars. Thus, Trump believes these imbalances stem from foreign trade practices that unfairly block U.S. exports, but most economists argue that it is simply due to macro-economic factors such as national spending differences between countries. To address all of this, Trump entertains imposing a 20% across-the-board tariff on all 3 trillion dollars worth of U.S. imports, from cars to pharmaceuticals to machinery, and various other products from the EU. 

The fact of the matter is, Europe has become increasingly reliant on exports to the U.S., making it vulnerable to the shockwaves of Trump’s new trade policy. Former European commission point person Garcia Bercero recommends that Europe should not try to match the U.S. duty for duty with the tariff game as it would result in lost exports to the U.S. as well as increased costs for European consumers and companies. Thus, the overall economic consensus at the EU summit is that Europe needs to prepare to strike back, but keep its own economic interests in mind, which starts with a plan for strategic autonomy to reduce foreign reliance. 

In a time of unpredictability and unprecedented divisions, EU leaders need to project unity to find a common strategy to cope with Trump’s new political agenda for European security, Ukraine, and trade. While the future relations between the U.S. and Europe still need time to grow, it is clear that a stronger Europe means a stronger America. 

Read More Here: 

• Jorge Liboreiro, Euro News

• Krisztina Than & Philip Blenkinsop, Reuters

• Staff, Atlantic Council

• Justin Spike & Raf Casert, AP News

Even in modern times, the United States has often operated off the principles of the 200 year-old Monroe Doctrine. It has long been understood that the two American continents are the purview of the United States only; as such, Europe stayed out of the New World for much of the 19th and 20th centuries.

China, however, is challenging this status quo. Their Belt and Road initiative has gained great success elsewhere, particularly in impoverished African and Asian nations. South America remains a largely unconquered frontier for China, and despite warm relations with singular nations (most notably Venezuela), Beijing does not have anywhere near the level of control they have on the African continent in South America.

With the election of Donald Trump in the United States, China sees an opportunity to expand. While the election result in America was good news Javier Milei in Argentina, he is alone in his anarcho-capitalist ideals which align perfectly with Mr. Trump’s worldview. Many other leaders are concerned. This goes especially for left-wing politicians such as Colombia’s Gustavo Petro and Brazil’s Lula de Silva, the latter of which met with Chinese president Xi Jinping this week. China already imports resources including oil and soybeans from Brazil. Mr. Xi seems to want more trade with Brazil, but Mr. de Silva is far more desperate.

Brazil is hosting the G20 summit in an attempt to court Mr. Trump. International cooperation does not come naturally to the president-elect, so Mr. de Silva is indicating that Brazil is just as transactional as Washington will be in two months. For instance, no joint statement is likely to be made on the Ukraine conflict, a disappointment to the Biden administration. While Brazil becoming more aligned with the West in such a significant way was probably always a pike dream, Mr. Trump’s election in the United States indicates to Mr. de Silva that he cannot trust the West, and thus he is diversifying in the East.

The problem comes for Brazil in what China has planned. The decision on whether or not to join the Belt and Road Initiative, an infrastructure project which has already plunged numerous states into debt, has split the ruling left-wing coalition. When Mr. Xi stays after the G20 summit to discuss politics, it is likely that he will try to sell Mr. de Silva on the BRI, under threat of losing China entirely.

The implications of Brazil joining the BRI would be enormous for Brazil, China, other countries in the region, and especially the United States. Once China has a significant foothold in South America, it can continue to use it to gain influence on the continent. While Mr. Trump wants to make the world revolve around America, his policies, ironically, might do the opposite.

Read more here:

• Elenore Hughes, Mauricio Savarese, and David Biller, Associated Press

• The Economist

• China Global South Project

For Myanmar’s junta, power has always been fragile. The military, which seized power in a February 2021 coup, has struggled to maintain control over the country due to the widespread civil disobedience movement and armed resistance groups. In response, Myanmar’s military junta has implemented mandatory conscription in a bid to strengthen its armed forces. It’s essentially a draft of the nation’s citizens who are then trained to fight with the junta. But despite the idea intending to strengthen the nation, it has largely had a negative impact on both those conscripted along with the rest of the country.

But to understand the burden conscription puts on soldiers, it’s imperative to understand the conditions for those conscripted. According to the UN, nearly half the population was living below the national poverty line of 1,590 kyats (about 50p) a day by the end of 2023, up from 24.8% in 2017. That effectively means most citizens are living day-to-day and require more financial opportunity. Unfortunately, conscription only does the opposite with The Guardian explaining that it has only worsened economic hardship. That’s in large part because the people conscripted are the working age citizens who make the money their family depends on. As the article goes on to explain, the conscripted men are men aged 18-35, and it is believed 25,000 have been taken away to training camps alone. 5,000 of these men have been deployed to the frontlines. That means that for families who are barely staying financially afloat, they might lose the few working age family members allowing their family to survive.

As a result of these policies, many have resorted to outright leaving the country. In 2024, when the military junta introduced forced conscription it prompted a mass exodus, particularly to Thailand. But specific conditions and laws make this decision even more incentivizing. Myanmar's conscription specifically noted it would mandate at least two years of military service for all men aged 18 to 35 and women aged 18 to 27. Maj-Gen Zaw Min Tun, the spokesperson for the military government, said in a statement that about a quarter of the country's 56 million population were eligible for military service under the law. Because of the sheer number of people eligible along with the timeframe they would be conscripted in, it’s no surprise why outright leaving the country is becoming a more common option amongst the country's working age citizens. 

Read more here:

• Guardian

• East Asian Forum

• BBC

Each year in South Africa, tens of thousands of young men will take up the only gig available to them: illegal mining. They will trek into long abandoned gold mines, searching for any leftover precious minerals at all that they can excavate, and then carefully navigate outwards with any goods found. Every work day, they will risk their lives, unsure of whether the mines they’re exploring will finally reach their day’s end and collapse. However, due to the illegal nature of their job, the South African government has decided to absolve itself of the duty of sending help when lives are actually on the line. Still, at what point does one’s job make it okay for them to lose their life?

Weeks ago, when South African police encountered a major mining shaft, they came face to face with this question. Not only had the entrance to the mine completely collapsed, but it had left roughly 3 to 4 thousand illegal miners stranded inside, left without food and water for days. The authorities immediately alerted the government and soon, a verdict was reached: they would send food, water, and personnel to lead the rescue mission, but only to a certain extent. By limiting the supplies sent, the government planned to force as many illegal miners to resurface, where they could then be arrested by the expectant police forces. 

The result of this brutal policy has been a standoff between thousands of stranded miners and a government eager to crack down on illegal mining. One miner was reported dead earlier this week with hundreds of others also weakened by the lack of food and water. In contrast, many others have heeded the government’s warning and submitted themselves to arrest, given they would be rescued beforehand. Roughly 1,000 arrests have already taken place, making this one of the greatest single-period crackdowns on illegal mining in South African history.

Still, although a victory for the government, their policy is raising countless ethical concerns beyond South Africa. Pressuring individuals to choose between their illegal job and their lives is anything but just and considering that it has resulted in the death of at least one miner thus far, it’s a lethal policy. Furthermore, delaying an emergency response for thousands of individuals because of mining isn’t correct either. It would be similar to 911 hanging up on a caller, because they have been made aware they are the perpetrator of a crime, past or present.

Naturally, South Africa still has a major problem to attend to. Annually, illegal mining will cost it close to 7 million USD and tens of thousands of individuals will involve themselves in the industry. Some workers from nearby countries, like Mozambique, Lesotho, and Zimbabwe, will travel to South Africa for the sole reason of pursuing illegal mining. For the millions lost in sales and the uncontrolled uptick in associated illegal immigration, the government definitely needs a change in current policy. However, risking the lives of its own people is far from the solution.

Read more here:

• Mogomotsi Magone, Associated Press 

• Mark Olade, Yale Environment

• Al Jazeera

• Nimi Princewell, CNN