Ahnlid characterised the current state of the international trade order as “evaporating”, pointing to a gradual erosion of the rules-based system that has underpinned global trade for decades. From a European perspective, this transformation is closely linked to the actions of major powers, particularly the United States, China, and Russia. Together, these developments signal what Ahnlid described as a “new trade disorder”, one that challenges existing institutions and demands new strategic responses from the EU.
A key focus of the seminar was the United States’ shift towards an “America First” trade policy. In practice, Ahnlid argued, this has meant a departure from the principles of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Rather than engaging in rules-based negotiations, the United States has increasingly relied on unilateral measures, including tariffs imposed for political or strategic reasons. This shift towards deal-making instead of formal negotiation results in a broader weakening of multilateral trade governance.
From a historical perspective, Ahnlid noted that the current moment is marked by uncertainty. Trade relations, particularly across the Atlantic, remain fragile and difficult to predict. While specific agreements, such as the so-called Turnberry Deal between the United States and the European Union, have been criticised, Ahnlid suggested that they may nevertheless represent the best available outcomes under present conditions.
At the same time, the economic effects of the Trump administration’s new tariff policies have been uneven. According to analyses by the National Board of Trade, the United States itself has experienced significant costs, while countries such as Sweden have felt a relatively limited impact. Other economies, including Canada, China, and Mexico, have been more negatively affected. Legal developments further complicate the picture, as recent rulings by the US Supreme Court have challenged the legality of certain tariff measures, adding another layer of uncertainty to the future of global trade.
In this context, Ahnlid emphasised the need for strong and proactive EU leadership. In particular, he underscored the importance of defending and, where necessary, reconstructing the rules-based trading system. With the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism effectively paralysed, the EU must work with like-minded partners to develop alternative frameworks for resolving trade disputes and responding to rule violations.
Alongside this, Ahnlid highlighted the growing importance of bilateral trade agreements. Ongoing processes surrounding agreements with partners such as Mercosur and India reflect a more pragmatic and flexible EU trade strategy. These agreements signal a shift towards securing economic cooperation even in the absence of fully functioning multilateral structures.
Finally, Ahnlid turned to the internal dimension of EU competitiveness. Despite its central role, the EU’s single market continues to underperform and does not yet deliver its full economic potential. Renewed efforts to reform and deepen the internal market are therefore essential. In this regard, Ahnlid pointed to Sweden as an example of a well-functioning capital market, suggesting that lessons can be drawn for broader European reforms.
Taken together, Ahnlid’s analysis presents a picture of a global trade system in transition, where established rules are weakening and uncertainty is increasing. For the European Union, this evolving landscape requires not only external engagement but also internal reform. Navigating this “new trade disorder” will depend on the EU’s ability to combine strategic leadership with institutional adaptation in a complex world economy.