EU foreign ministers from the 27-member bloc will begin talks with Ukraine and neighboring Moldova on the first cluster of EU legislation, opening the next stage of their accession process.

Ukraine’s progress had been delayed for nearly two years after Hungary blocked further movement under former Prime Minister Viktor Orban. The path reopened after his rival Peter Magyar won elections in April.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Antonio Costa said the move recognized the efforts and reforms undertaken by Ukraine and Moldova despite significant challenges.

The decision provides political support for Kyiv, which applied for EU membership after Russia’s invasion, but officials said major obstacles remain before accession can take place.

Ukraine must complete negotiations covering 35 chapters of EU law, including areas such as environment, agriculture, justice and security, organized into six major clusters.

A European diplomat said the process would be complicated by the ongoing war, institutional reforms and challenges including organized crime.

Hungary’s new leadership has suggested that even if negotiations are completed, membership could still take many years, while some EU officials have discussed alternative arrangements.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has proposed the idea of Ukraine becoming an “associate member” without voting rights while it works toward full accession, a proposal that Kyiv has viewed with caution.

President Volodymyr Zelensky has insisted that Ukraine’s goal remains full EU membership with complete rights.

The broader debate comes as Ukraine, Moldova and other candidate countries seek closer ties with the bloc, raising questions about how the EU would function with more members.

Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kestutis Budrys said the EU should prepare itself to accept Ukraine by 2030 if Kyiv completes the required reforms and negotiations.

He stressed that the timeline would depend on Ukraine’s progress and the outcome of accession talks.

The measure comes as fertilizer prices have surged worldwide after the near-total closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime corridor along Iran’s coast that handles roughly one-third of global fertilizer trade. The disruption has intensified competition for alternative supplies and raised concerns over food production and agricultural costs.

The Council said the temporary tariff suspension would apply to major nitrogen-based fertilizer products but would exclude imports originating from Russia and Belarus.

Although the EU has limited direct dependence on Middle Eastern fertilizer supplies, officials said market-wide price increases have affected fertilizer availability and affordability across the bloc. The move is intended to ease pressure on farmers facing higher production costs during a period of heightened volatility in global agricultural markets.

The Council noted that a significant share of EU fertilizer imports already enters duty-free under preferential trade arrangements. However, substantial volumes continue to face customs duties ranging between 5.5% and 6.5%.

To protect European producers while expanding supply, the tariff waiver will be capped through a quota mechanism. Eligible imports will be limited to the volume of most-favored-nation imports recorded in 2024, plus an additional amount equivalent to 20% of fertilizer volumes imported from Russia and Belarus during the same year, the Council said.

The measures are expected to take effect within days after publication in the EU’s Official Journal.
The decision follows warnings from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization that a prolonged disruption of shipping through Hormuz could trigger severe consequences for global food systems by constraining access to fertilizers and raising production costs for farmers.

Early signs of strain are already emerging in agricultural markets. Australia, the world’s third-largest wheat exporter, is planting fewer crops this season amid elevated fertilizer costs, raising the risk of a substantially smaller harvest. Across parts of Asia, rice production is also expected to decline this year as the conflict compounds weather-related challenges associated with an emerging El Niño pattern.

According to the Council, the EU imported 2 million metric tons of ammonia and 5.9 million metric tons of urea in 2024, alongside 6.7 million metric tons of nitrogen-based fertilizers and nitrogen-containing mixtures.

The European Commission estimates the bloc’s direct reliance on Middle Eastern supplies remains relatively limited, accounting for about 3% of ammonia imports and between 1% and 2% of nitrogen fertilizer imports.

In a joint statement, the groups warned that persistent institutional paralysis, rising protectionism and unresolved disputes risk undermining the WTO’s core functions, including its ability to negotiate new rules and enforce existing ones.

They said urgent action was needed to restore credibility and ensure the organization remains responsive to modern trade realities.

Officials highlighted the continued dysfunction of the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism, particularly the paralysis of its appellate process, which has limited the body’s capacity to deliver binding resolutions in trade conflicts.

They called for a fully operational and accessible system to uphold rules-based trade.

The statement stressed the need to update WTO frameworks to address emerging areas such as digital commerce, industrial subsidies and supply chain resilience.

The EU and CPTPP members said current rules do not adequately reflect evolving global trade patterns or technological change.

The groups reaffirmed their commitment to a rules-based international trading system, warning that fragmentation into competing trade blocs could weaken global economic stability.

They urged broader membership engagement to advance consensus-driven reforms.

The WTO, established in 1995 to oversee global trade rules, has faced increasing pressure in recent years amid geopolitical tensions and shifting economic priorities among major economies.

S M Faiyaz Hossain

Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ policy acts like a globalized version of the old Monroe Doctrine, called ‘Monroe Doctrine 2.0.

In 1823, President James Monroe introduced the Monroe Doctrine, a crucial U.S. policy to stop European nations from taking over or interfering with countries in the Americas. Monroe stated that new European colonies were not allowed in the Western Hemisphere and that any attempt by European powers to control or harm independent nations in this area would be a threat to the U.S. The United States promised not to get involved in European issues or their existing colonies but wanted to protect newly independent Latin American countries. At that time, Spain wanted to reclaim its old colonies, and Russia aimed to expand along North America’s Pacific coast. The U.S. couldn’t enforce the policy alone due to a weak military, but Britain supported the doctrine because it aligned with their trade interests in Latin America. Over time, the Monroe Doctrine evolved, with President Theodore Roosevelt adding the Roosevelt Corollary, which allowed U.S. intervention in Latin America to keep Europeans out. By the mid-20th century, under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the focus shifted to cooperation and non-interference with the Good Neighbour Policy. The Monroe Doctrine remains a vital part of U.S. foreign policy and symbolizes America’s role in the Western Hemisphere.

President Donald Trump didn’t talk about the Monroe Doctrine during his 2016 campaign, but it became key to his “America First” foreign policy as president. In 2018, he brought up the doctrine in a United Nations speech, saying it was important to keep outside interference out of the Western Hemisphere. By his 2024 campaign, the Monroe Doctrine had become very important, especially to push back against China’s influence in Latin America. Many historians and experts believed that if Trump were elected again, he would focus more on the Monroe Doctrine. This would mean trying to have more control in the Western Hemisphere while reducing involvement in Europe and Asia. Hal Brands, a historian, thought Trump would give the doctrine more energy during a second term, matching his “America First” approach. James Jay Carafano from the Heritage Foundation also suggested reinvigorating the doctrine to counter foreign influence, particularly from China. Experts at Foreign Affairs and Carnegie Endowment pointed out that Trump’s policies reflected a modern take on the doctrine, trying to expand U.S. influence beyond the Western Hemisphere.

Trump’s trade policies aimed to reduce the influence of other countries and strengthen U.S. control in nearby regions. One key move was imposing 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico. He argued these tariffs would help decrease migration and stop fentanyl trafficking, but they also served to pressure Mexico to follow U.S. interests, reflecting an idea similar to the Monroe Doctrine, which emphasizes U.S. influence in the Americas. In his trade conflict with China, Trump focused on reducing China’s growing economic power in Latin America. His goal was to curb China’s influence and shift supply chains back to the Americas. To achieve this, he implemented reciprocal tariffs, including a basic 10% tariff on most Latin American countries, with higher rates for Guyana and Nicaragua. This approach was about claiming economic control in the region and showed Trump’s willingness to prioritize U.S. interests over existing free trade agreements like CAFTA-DR. Trump also used tariffs to push countries toward aligning with U.S. priorities in areas like security cooperation and trade agreements. For instance, Paraguay’s purchase of U.S. radars and Ecuador’s consideration of hosting a U.S. military base highlight how his economic measures were tied to broader geopolitical goals.

The Monroe Doctrine originally aimed to keep European powers out of the Americas, but Trump wanted it to apply worldwide. He believed some large organizations and allies were trying to weaken the U.S. or take advantage of its resources without giving enough return. Trump was sceptical of NATO and the EU because he thought Europe relied too much on American security and didn’t spend enough on their own defence. His administration wanted European countries to handle their security more, so the U.S. could reduce its role and investment in NATO. This was a significant change from the usual U.S.-Europe partnership. Trump’s interest in Greenland shows his use of the Monroe Doctrine approach. He wanted to buy Greenland to increase U.S. influence in the Arctic, where there are lots of valuable resources. This move was also meant to challenge China and Russia’s presence in the region. Although Denmark rejected the idea, Trump’s focus on Greenland aligns with the Monroe Doctrine by trying to control key areas and preventing other countries from gaining power there. In addition, his tariff actions against Europe and his efforts to strengthen the U.S. dollar show his desire to change the global economy to favour the United States.

Trump’s actions against the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) demonstrate how he applies his “America First” ideas. He targeted USAID because some argued it supported projects that hurt U.S. interests or advanced foreign agendas conflicting with his policy. By freezing foreign aid and stopping USAID activities in countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Ukraine, Trump aimed to align U.S. foreign assistance with domestic priorities. This decision also fits with Trump’s reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, which he used to address perceived threats from non-state actors or certain ideologies. Critics claimed USAID funding supported initiatives associated with regime changes or left-wing agendas abroad, which Trump viewed as harmful to U.S. sovereignty and regional stability.

Donald Trump’s “America First” policy acts like a globalized version of the old Monroe Doctrine, called “Monroe Doctrine 2.0.” He used this idea to show U.S. power around the world. Trump challenged Global institutions like NATO, the EU. He decided to bypass these institutions and put tariffs on both allies and competitors of the U.S. His interest in buying Greenland showed a Monroe-like plan to control important areas to compete with China and Russia. Trump’s aim to shift supply chains more toward the Americas followed the doctrine’s focus on this region. Years, decades later another U.S President may emulate President Donald Trump’s Policies and commentators may name it America First 2.0, or Monroe Doctrine 3.0. 

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.