In 1864 five sailors from the wrecked Grafton ship landed on the Auckland archipelago, a string of desert islands 400 kilometres south of New Zealand. Alone on inhospitable land with food for only a few weeks, the sailors survived for 20 months until their rescue. The crew’s incredible feat did not owe much to luck. It boiled down to their ability to avoid making three mistakes—panicking, dividing and focusing on short-term goals at the expense of long-term survival.
Like the Grafton sailors back then, European governments have limited knowledge of how things will turn out and what storms will gather in the next four years of Donald Trump’s presidency. Experience from his first term suggests things will be chaotic, and the newly re-elected president’s first days in office certainly confirm this forecast. To weather the coming storm, Europeans can draw some inspiration from the Grafton crew: Europeans’ chances to survive Trump 2.0 (almost) unscathed will hinge on their ability to keep calm, remain united and stay focused on Europe’s long-term priorities.
The first risk for the Grafton crew was to panic and make poor decisions. After their boat sank, the sailors faced a difficult choice: the head of the expedition, François Raynal, was so unwell that he would have to be carried on sailors’ shoulders amid ferocious waves to reach the safety of the island’s shores. Instead of rushing to save their own lives, the four other sailors patiently devised ways to save Raynal. Unbeknownst to them, their ability to keep their cool boosted their long-term survival chances; Raynal’s ingenuity proved instrumental to solving many of the challenges the sailors faced in the following 20 months.
Europeans are now facing a similar situation, as panic could push them to make poor choices in their dealings with Trump. European hopes that promises to buy more American liquefied natural gas (LNG) will help the bloc dodge US tariffs could be a prime example of such rushed decision-making. In some ways, this pledge has merit: it might appease Trump in the short term and the only way for the EU to force European energy firms to import more US LNG would be to ban Russian LNG imports—a policy that may not be a bad idea. However, buying more US energy may not be in the EU’s long-term interests. US firms already supply more than half of the bloc’s LNG imports, making Europeans vulnerable to potential Trumpian threats of curbing gas shipments (sounds familiar?).
The second risk that the Grafton crew managed to skirt was that of division. The sailors’ decision to save Raynal showed their early realisation that they needed each other to face what was coming. Following on this logic, upon landing on the island the crew drafted a constitution that established rules to take difficult decisions. This system proved crucial: it ensured that the group remained united no matter what challenges they eventually faced. Europeans could draw some inspiration from this story, for instance regarding their response to Trump’s likely tariffs on US imports from the bloc.
It is easy to see how EU member states could enter into fierce fights regarding whether and how to retaliate against US tariffs. On the one hand, industrial heavy-hitters like Germany or Italy could prove reluctant to go down the retaliation road for fear of triggering a full-blown, unpredictable transatlantic trade war. Such hesitations would not be surprising. A US-EU trade war would hit these economies hard, as they ship a large share of their exports to the US. What’s more, the many EU countries that rely on the US as a key source of imports (like Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Lithuania) would probably worry that EU tariffs on American imports could fuel domestic inflation.
On the other hand, a quick glance at EU trade statistics suggests that a number of other large EU economies (like France, Poland or Spain) could be more inclined to back EU retaliatory measures. The US absorbs a comparatively small share of these countries’ exports, suggesting they would have less to lose in a transatlantic trade war than many of their neighbours. The same goes for a number of tiny economies that have limited trade ties to the US, like Cyprus, Slovenia, Latvia, Slovenia or Malta.
Like the Grafton sailors, Europeans have a lot to lose if they fail to remain united. Disputes on trade policy would play into Trump’s hands by preventing the emergence of a unified European response to US tariffs; without at least 15 member states representing 60% of the EU population on board, the European Commission would not be able to impose retaliatory measures on the US. Trade is not the only area where EU member states could divide. Many of the China-related measures of the commission’s “welcome package” for Trump are contentious in European capitals, with Germany, the Netherlands, Hungary or Slovakia likely to oppose Brussels’s proposals to go tougher on Beijing. This is a serious issue: moot proposals that only the commission backs will not impress Trump.
The third challenge for the Grafton sailors was that they had no idea how long their predicament would last. In such a situation, the risk is to prioritise short-term mundanities at the expense of long-term survival. The crew dodged this final risk masterfully. Instead of arguing over how to share meagre food supplies, they devised ways to make the most of the island’s resources (read: sea lions and berries). Despite landing on the island in the summer, the sailors also quickly channelled their energy into building a solid house (complete with a wooden fireplace and a shellfish-made chimney). This decision proved crucial: it ensured that the crew survived the two stormy winters they eventually had to spend in sub-zero temperatures.
Europeans should refrain from spending too much time worrying about Trump’s (most) outlandish declarations—like the Grafton’s shipwrecked sailors could not dodge storms, Europeans will not be able to prevent Trump from being Trump
Similarly, Europeans should immediately channel their energy into building shelters to survive the coming Trump tempests. To do so, they should refrain from spending too much time worrying about Trump’s (most) outlandish declarations—like the sailors could not dodge storms, Europeans will not be able to prevent Trump from being Trump. As former US secretary of state Antony Blinken told a Paris audience after Trump said that he was keen to buy Greenland, “This is not going to happen, so there’s no point talking about it.”
Instead of wasting time pondering nonsense, the best way for Europeans to prepare for the Trump storm is to focus their energy on fixing their own weaknesses. Trump can bully Europe precisely because the bloc is divided, ill-equipped to deal with many of the priorities of the day and losing global relevance. To address these issues, Europeans need to take an inward look—instead of rushing to react to Trump’s every utterance—and devise ways to fix Europe’s weaknesses through policies that help beef up innovation financing, increase defence spending and ink free-trade deals with developing economies.
Two months after the Grafton wreckage, 25 shipwrecked sailors from the Invercauld landed on another part of the Auckland archipelago. Panicked, divided and unable to focus on priorities for their long-term survival, 16 of the 19 Invercauld crew members died within a year. Under Trump 2.0, EU leaders face a choice: follow in the footsteps of either the Grafton’s or the Invercauld’s sailors. If they prefer to emulate the Grafton example, Europeans had better keep calm, remain united and channel their energy into projects that will benefit the bloc in the long run—long after Trump 2.0 comes to an end.
The European Council on Foreign Relations does not take collective positions. ECFR publications only represent the views of their individual authors.
