During her recent speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen clearly outlined one of the main thrusts of the EU’s economic policy in the coming years: expanding and strengthening the network of international trade agreements with reliable partners.

According to von der Leyen, Brussels does not intend to stop at agreements already concluded or at an advanced stage with countries such as Mexico, Switzerland, Indonesia and the South American Mercosur bloc.
The aim is to continue building an ever-widening trade network, including new partners such as the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates and a comprehensive free trade agreement with Australia.

Behind this strategy is not just a trade agenda. Rather, it is a political response to the increasing fragmentation of the global economy, geopolitical tensions and the progressive weakening of the multilateral rules that have governed international trade in recent decades.

Trade agreements as a geopolitical tool

In today’s international context, free trade agreements are no longer just economic instruments. They have also become geopolitical instruments.

In recent years, the global trading system, historically regulated by the World Trade Organisation (WTO), has shown increasing difficulties. Trade disputes between major powers, the increasing use of tariffs and technological restrictions, and the return of aggressive industrial policies have put the model of open globalisation under pressure.

Within this framework, the European Union is trying to defend a principle that has been one of the pillars of its economic prosperity: open and regulated trade.

Building a network of agreements with economically dynamic and politically cooperative countries means guaranteeing European companies access to markets, regulatory stability and more secure supply chains. But it also means strengthening an international system based on shared rules.

In other words, Brussels attempts to build a kind of ‘commercial geography of trust’, a network of partners with whom to share economic, environmental and regulatory standards.

The strategic value of South-East Asia

Among the partners mentioned by von der Leyen, several South-East Asian countries stand out: the Philippines, Thailand and Malaysia.

This choice is not accidental. The ASEAN region today represents one of the most economically dynamic regions on the planet, with a sustained growth of the middle class, strong integration into global production chains and growing strategic importance in trade routes between Europe and the Indo-Pacific.

For Europe, strengthening trade cooperation with these countries means diversifying supply chains, reducing dependence on single global suppliers and increasing the European economic presence in a crucial region.

It should not be forgotten that South-East Asia has become one of the main theatres of economic competition between the great powers. For Brussels, developing solid economic relations with these countries is also a way to assert an autonomous European presence in the Indo-Pacific space.

The crux of the agreement with Mercosur

Of the agreements mentioned by the European Commission, the one with Mercosur remains probably the most controversial.

The trade treaty between the European Union and the countries of the South American bloc – in particular Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay – has been negotiated for more than 20 years and continues to meet with political resistance in several European member states.

There are three main areas of criticism: the impact on the competitiveness of European agriculture, environmental concerns related to the alleged increase in Amazon deforestation, and the fear of an increase in cheap agricultural imports.

However, the Commission argues that the agreement includes environmental clauses and monitoring mechanisms to ensure adequate standards. Furthermore, from a geopolitical point of view, the agreement would be an important step to strengthen the European presence in Latin America, a region where the economic influence of other powers (especially China) has grown significantly in recent years.

The Australian case and the logic of ‘economic democracies’

Another central dossier is the trade agreement with Australia.

An EU-Australia free trade agreement would have significant symbolic and strategic value. Both economies share advanced regulatory standards, strong democratic institutions and a strong interest in stable international trade routes.

Contemporary economic policy parlance increasingly speaks of ‘friend-shoring’, i.e. the tendency to concentrate trade and production chains with countries considered politically reliable.

In this sense, strengthening economic relations with partners such as Australia or the United Arab Emirates helps to create a trading system less exposed to geopolitical tensions.

A delicate balance between openness and protection

However, the European strategy of trade agreements is not without its questions.

Within the European Union, there is an increasingly intense debate on the relationship between trade openness and the protection of strategic industries. In particular, there has been much talk in recent months of a partial liberalisation of trade with India and even of contracting out intellectual work on behalf of European companies to qualified Indian personnel (especially engineers).

India, as is well known, still has low wages compared to those in Europe, does not care about environmental standards and considers many human rights an optional extra.
The risk is that the mistake already made thirty years ago with China will be repeated for the second time: seeing it as a market outlet today (especially for the agonising automobile industry) instead of an unfair competitor the day after tomorrow.

Brussels is trying to balance two seemingly opposing needs: keeping international markets open and strengthening European economic resilience. And even if, on paper, the new generation of trade agreements increasingly include chapters on environmental sustainability, labour protection and the safety of production chains, this may not necessarily prevent global competition from resulting in a further race to the bottom on environment and wages, which has so far been the slow death sentence of European industry.

A European response to global disorder

The strategy outlined by Ursula von der Leyen ultimately reflects a growing realisation: the world is entering a phase of increased economic and political instability.

In this context, the EU seems to want to respond not with protectionist retreat, but with a form of selective openness: building deep economic relations with partners willing to share rules and standards.

This is not a choice without risk or internal tensions. However, for a continent heavily dependent on international trade, strengthening a global network of balanced and regulated trade agreements appears to be one of the most realistic means to defend economic prosperity, political stability and influence.

In an increasingly competitive and unpredictable international system, building strong economic partnerships is not just a trade policy. It is, more and more clearly, a strategic choice on the role Europe wants to play in the world.