As the world shifts into a post-globalization era of sanctions, trade wars, and geopolitical rivalries, Europe faces a defining choice: remain a passive arena in the U.S.–China confrontation, or assert itself as an autonomous power. In this interview, Edouard Gaudot, Expert at the Center for European Law & Economics of the ESSEC Institute for Geopolitics & Business, shares his perspective ahead of the conference “Welcome to Post-Globalization: Can Europe and Africa Invent a Third Way Between Washington and Beijing?” (11 September 2025). He argues that Europe’s future will hinge on political leadership, a redefined partnership with Africa, and the courage to build strategic autonomy beyond dependency on others.
In the post-globalization era, marked by sanctions, trade wars, and geopolitical rivalry, how should we understand the EU’s ability to define its own economic and political model distinct from Washington and Beijing?
Edouard Gaudot – The pressure on Europe today is immense. Alliances, multilateralism, interdependencies, liberalism: every certainty on which the EU and its governments built their worldview is now either gone or existentially challenged, forcing them to break urgently with complacency. Our neo-mercantilist model, rooted in the industries of the 20th century, is outdated; our fragmented banking system has become obsolete; our research and resource allocation have been stifled by decades of conservatism and absurd austerity policies. Europe’s ability to redefine a viable model will depend above all on political leadership — and on rekindling a genuine sense of community. We are not “the West”; we are Europeans.
Your intervention raises the prospect of Europe and Africa building a “third way.” From a European perspective, what political and economic choices does the EU need to make if it wants to move beyond being a passive arena in the U.S.–China confrontation?
E.G. – Marked by strategic cooperation in trade, migration, security, and climate, EU–Africa relations are longstanding and dense. Yet they remain strained by unequal partnerships, resource competition, debt concerns, diverging geopolitical alignments, and anxiety over Africa’s demographic rise. The brutal geopolitical rebalancing now under way demands a complete rethink of our approach to Africa. We should show genuine interest in its development, not merely in its resources. Europe can offer far more than its geopolitical rivals — provided it avoids acting like a predator and learns to engage with Africa’s vibrant civil society. A thriving African continent will benefit global stability.
China’s foreign policy has become more assertive and predatory, including through its trade policy toward Europe. How should the EU interpret Beijing’s approach and what tools does it have to defend its economic sovereignty?
E.G. – For too long we were naive: we thought trade, development, and the rise of a middle class would turn China into another South Korea. But the Chinese Communist Party had other ambitions. We neglected the early warning signs and were late to grasp that Beijing only ever respected sheer power. Now we find ourselves stuck between two antagonistic superpowers. Of course, we need to protect our economies from China’s abuses. But faced with Trump’s imperial behavior, we might also — on climate, security, and global finance — seek renewed common ground with China, which is in fact more transactional than ideological.
Across the Atlantic, Europe faces increasing pressure from Washington, most recently illustrated by the Turnberry Agreement. How do you assess Europe’s ability to maintain an equal partnership with the U.S. in this new phase of transatlantic relations?
E.G. – Turnberry was no deal — at best appeasement, at worst surrender. Europeans must recognize that the U.S. was never a friend, and is no longer an ally. Honestly, there can be no equal partnership under such dependence on American security. What Trump did was to burst our comfortable bubble of denial and expose Europe’s structural weaknesses. He is an arrogant, narcissistic imperialist — but he is right: we accepted crippling dependencies in both security and trade. Europe must now choose whether it remains a mere part of the U.S. empire, or rises as an autonomous power with a distinct role in the world.
The return of war on European soil and the persistence of the Russian threat highlight the inseparability of security and economics. How is this post-globalization environment transforming the way Europe designs its economic policy?
E.G. – The narrative of “shared peace” was so strong that we forgot war never truly left our continent. Northern Ireland’s violence, Cyprus’s occupation, or the Yugoslav bloodbath never matched the existential threat that Putin’s Russia now poses. Peace and security can no longer be pursued through trade, mutual dependencies, and unilateral disarmament. Our economic model must evolve to overcome our vulnerabilities: a green industrial base, decarbonized energy, a common defense industry, integrated capital markets, ambitious research programs — and above all, genuine cooperation among Member States. Only then can we achieve strategic autonomy.
Many argue that post-globalization implies fragmentation into competing blocs. Do you believe the EU is equipped to operate as a cohesive bloc, or are its internal divisions undermining its capacity to act strategically?
E.G. – No. The EU’s inability to grasp the realities of a hostile U.S. and a powerful China exposes its weakness. Our political, corporate, and cultural elites need a complete mindset overhaul at every institutional level. Acting strategically means thinking ahead — not just reacting.
As the UN celebrates its 80th anniversary, the notion of a “Global South” opposing the “collective West” is being advanced by China and Russia, and amplified by India, Brazil, and South Africa in the G20 and BRICS. In this context, what place can the EU realistically claim within the United Nations system?
E.G. – This narrative is dangerous. First, there is no such thing as a unified “Global South,” and Russia certainly does not belong in it. The BRICS+ must be taken seriously in their push for de-dollarisation and their challenge to U.S. dominance — but they do not represent a coherent alternative. Similarly, the “West” is an outdated Cold War label that reduces Europe to a subordinate of an imperial U.S. We should reject it. The UN, however, is irreparably dysfunctional. What the EU can do is to build genuine, mutually beneficial partnerships with emerging powers unwilling to choose between Beijing and Washington.
ABOUT THE ESSEC INSTITUTE FOR GEOPOLITICS & BUSINESS
Created in 2024 by ESSEC, the Institute for Geopolitics & Business examines how geopolitical shocks reshape companies’ economic models.
Operating across ESSEC Business School’s campuses in France, Morocco, and Singapore, it brings a tri-continental perspective to what drives corporate competitiveness in the post-globalization era: vigilance, resilience, independence.
It feeds into ESSEC’s degree programs, executive education, and research to foster a new generation of geopolitics-proof business leaders capable of steering and growing companies amid an increasingly brutalized world.
Rooted in ESSEC’s academic excellence, the Institute draws on 4 flagship centers:
- the IRENE Center for Negotiation & Mediation,
- the Center for Geopolitics, Defense & Leadership,
- the Center for European Law & Economics, and
- the Chair Business & Industry in Africa.
Contact: Thomas FRIANG, Executive Director of the ESSEC Institute for Geopolitics & Business - friang@essec.edu