Just days after the French rejected the European constitution, placing a question mark over the future of Europe, a double whammy of trade disputes makes Peter Mandelson's career a subject of speculation.

The EU Trade Commissioner might not be to blame for the rows Europe finds itself in with the United States, over aircraft subsidies, and China, over textile tariffs. But the next chapter of his career is likely to hinge on how he handles them.

Given how busy he is going to be, working to avert two potentially catastrophic trade wars, it would make life easier if he were able to rely on a dependable honest broker. The obvious candidate would be the World Trade Organisation. However, the complex culture of brinksmanship that governs international trade talks means the body is as likely to be used as a pawn in the game as a forum for resolution.

Mr Mandelson's Chinese puzzle has its roots in the end this year of global textile quotas under WTO rules. Importing countries have retained the right to re-impose curbs on Chinese textile exports if they are proven to have increased dramatically and severely disrupted local markets. So far, the US has slapped import quotas on seven categories of Chinese textile goods. Europe may follow.

Last week the EU asked for formal talks with Beijing at the WTO over Chinese exports of flax yarn and T-shirts, potentially bringing Europe a step closer to imposing limits on the products in its markets. The move - towards a WTO-brokered settlement - sparked retaliation from China, which scrapped export tariffs designed to curb the flood of cheap Chinese textiles into Europe.

But the WTO looks in danger of becoming a no-go zone. The EU instigated the movement towards the body over textiles, but Mr Mandelson’s office yesterday said that he still hoped the situation could be settled before reaching the organisation.

Likewise, when it comes to US complaints over Airbus, the EU's trade representative is desperate to prevent the row reaching the WTO’s Geneva headquarters. When the US announced it would go to the body over alleged illegal subsidies granted to the European aerospace giant he called the decision "highly regrettable".

"Airbus’s success is well earned," he added. "It’s won through hard work, high technology and huge creativity, not by subsidies as Boeing would like to pretend."

Given the millions from European government coffers spent on getting Airbus airborne, these claims are debatable. The EU may be on safer ground in arguing that the EU's financial aid is offset by Washington subsidising Boeing through favourable terms and military contracts. The arguments could be spun out for several months. But the US says Europe has forced its hand after Airbus requested British government aid for its A350 long-haul plane, which is designed to compete with Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner.

Mr Mandelson's office is adamant that the WTO is not the right place for this dispute, pointing out that it would be by far the largest to go before the body and that it involves two "totemic" businesses which should be allowed to look after themselves in a market that is large enough to accommodate them both.

"I am disappointed that the US has chosen this confrontation with Europe," Mr Mandelson said this morning. "America’s decision will, I fear, spark probably the biggest, most difficult and costly legal dispute in the WTO’s history. It will be hard fought on both sides and, I can assure you, Europe’s interests will be fully defended."

So why the aversion to the WTO? Besides the issues of time and cost, Mr Mandelson has argued that the body has more important work to do. He said this morning that he had just attended a succession of meetings on the Doha round of trade talks, which were started three years ago with the aim of improving conditions in the developing world but which have floundered since.

"I was struck by the complexity of the round, its slow pace and by the urgent need for an injection of energy into the talks," he said. "I was also struck by the number of WTO members who said they wanted Europe and America to supply more of this energy and to show leadership together."

Raising the spectre of Doha while ostensibly aiming to sort out the global aviation industry is open to a couple of interpretations. It could be seen as a cynical attempt to spin the press, embarrass the US and win the aviation battle. Or it could actually be part of a massively ambitious plan to reconfigure world trade to the benefit of poor countries.

One thing is certain. If Mr Mandelson were able to deliver Doha while sidestepping the mother of all WTO disputes in the process, his legacy - and future employment prospects - would be assured.

Times Recommends

• Tehran cannot live up to its rhetoric
• The new unicycle that will ‘change the world’
• We cannot wish away Iran’s bomb