Is the EU likely to become a major international actor?

By Daniel Ariza Ávila

Abstract

The European Union is facing several internal and external challenges, posing a threat to the continuity of the Union. This article aims to look into these topics and how the EU Strategic agenda plans to tackle them. By having an understanding of the current state of the organization, I will aim to answer a question that many, in times of uncertainty, ask themselves: is the EU likely to become a major international actor?

I would like to disclaim that due to the very recent geopolitical shifts on a global scale. Part of this article may quickly become obsolete, especially the more present related topics, from the EU strategic agenda onwards, as it relies on political shifts that are taking place at the days of the elaboration of this paper.

A taste of the European values and its forthcoming plans

In an anarchical Hobbesian setting, a world where the greatest and most powerful are the strongest in military terms. The citizens of the European Union do not cherish it, because its roots, its origins or its sentiments are not de facto design for the Europeans; they are selfless, they are global and, in many aspects, curated. This does not make the European powerful; it irremediably becomes a quite appealing lunch in a world full of hyenas. Europeans do not like Hobbesian cosmovision, Europe’s greatest efforts throughout its lifespan have been to transform that.

For the European Union to survive in this natural state of the world is a true challenge. It has become one of the world’s best chances to challenge the system. This has of course come with its ups and downs. Nowadays, the EU faces one of its greatest crises, not only internally but also externally. The integrity project is stuck, and its external presence has diluted. The EU’s identity is weak, and so is its legislative agenda.

According to Article 2 of the Lisbon Reform Treaty, the EU is founded on the value of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and human rights, including the rights of people belonging to minorities. Regarding its relations with the “wider world” it encourages the organization and its members to promote these values, contributing to peace, security, and the sustainable development of the Earth.

It is knowledgeable that the formation of the European Union is based on a coalition of states that have been, for centuries, in constant rivalry and decade-long wars. Therefore, this new institution, successor from the European Coal and Steel Community from 1951, seems to leave that behind, as many of the Europeans state their golden hegemonic reigns were long over. An alliance whose theoretical values are the defense and the promotion of the law, human rights and democracy; yet its backbone is the economic integration through the Euro project. This makes the European Union, theoretically, a normative power. This is particularly important as it says to the outside world that the EU is by no means trying to be tutored by anyone, but rather the opposite. The organization sets itself as the most advanced one in civil, political, and human rights. How will they tackle this through public diplomacy? Before deepening into this topic, I would like to first present the current challenges the EU faces, both internally and externally.

EU’s domestic struggles

Europe is currently facing an identity problem. I will not be addressing this section to dive into the specific union crises the EU has gone through, like the Eurozone crises or the energetic one, but rather how these crises have raised concerns over a bigger, structural problem.

The Eurozone crisis of 2009 played a turning point over the unconditional support states, and their citizens had over the mission. After 2009, the first negative symptoms of the integration project degraded the youth's interest in the union. This is especially preoccupying as it is essential for the organization to keep future generations motivated with the EU. They have regularly found that the youth in southern states tend to be more skeptical compared to youth of the most creditor states in the EU. Soon enough, the union becomes a dichotomy of its kind, generating an integral problem over its identity and set values.

The rise of the extremist ideologies has historically risen during an epoch of uncertainty, governmental weakness, or general discomfort by the voters, so did fascism, so did Nazism and so has done current extremely conservative forces like AFD in Germany or Vox in Spain. The benefit of fear is their ace on the political board.

Why does this work effortlessly work for them? Simple, because no one can ever doubt their effectiveness as they have never had the chance to make it happen. The EU domestic problem relies on a populist driven discourse given by extreme, often anti-system, liberal parties. Their words have eclipsed the authority of the union. 

EU’s foreign issues

I would like to focus my attention on the two core problems the EU is facing outside its borders.

The most prominent one set off with the COVID-19 Pandemic, locking countries away and closing global markets. The economic and public cost was evident, but it set the tone for the transition of the system we had lived up to until the 2020s. The 2008, 2020 and the most recent 2022 crisis with the Russian invasion of Ukraine have shown the plunge of globalism. The international order is progressively moving from a global to a set of regional systems. This is critical for the EU as it hits its most vital reason for existence. Since then, the EU has seen itself surrounded by nation-intended policies, closing themselves from the international global market flow therefore leaving the EU solitary on the board provoking recent crises like the energetic ones, helping historical EU allies’ benefit from this weakness.

The second, quite recent problematic of the EU is the dramatic loss of one of the strongest friends the EU had since its creation, the United States. 2024 Presidential election got Donald Trump elected as head of state; his skepticism over the EU and its effectiveness have made him withdraw his support on the organization, leaving occidental Europe, for the first time, with a plausible threat on the other side of the Atlantic. This is no joke for the Union, as they have consistently relied on the US to carry out and spread awareness on the defense of many of the EU values, not to mention the US acted as the military shield of the organization with the presence of NATO headquarters in Brussels.

EU’s strategic agenda

EU future policy will be defined by the 2024-2029 strategic agenda, as they outline their plans and objectives for the recently renewed commission to tackle their problems.

On paper, the EU reinforces one key aspect, unity. Unity at times of disparity has worked splendidly for the Union. The Strategic Agenda published by the European Council uses the pronoun “we” a total of 89 times, along several uses of the adverb “together”. They want to reassure the Union to make it its members, for its members.

How they will achieve a stronger unity is through the formation of new nexus such as the European “readiness” or the enlargement project, without forgetting the global challenge, climate change. I will briefly explain each of these three key topics, but as I have done in previous explanations, I would emphasize how this legislative approach tackles the bigger objective, union against the “enemies” of the project.

The recently renamed “readiness” project, also referred to as “re-arm Europe” calls countries to unite militarily against a war we have at the doorstep of our homes. This legislative proposal originates from the dropout of a key ally and is justified by a set of reasons which do not necessarily involve the Ukraine-Russia war. The goal of this plan, to give a homogeneous sense to the concept of EU defense, to unite military operations, to standardize communications, and to carry out larger scale operations with ease. In other words, they aim to build a safeguard capable of keeping secure with the EU while reinforcing their commitment to NATO at the same time.

The paradox is visible, why promote this policy, why would the Union ever make one of its key policies for the next five years a standardized European army when the Union is all pro-peace. The development of this policy originated in response to the American dropping military support to the Union. This evidently breaks article five of the Washington Treaty of 1949 yet this nor any other form of international law that restrains of the United States liberties on the international order are fixed, as we have seen with other recent cases such as the public rejection of the International Court ruling on the arrest of the Prime Minister and former Minister of Defense of Israel for presumed War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.

The EU readiness plan therefore is a quick response from the organization as they realize the loss of the umbrella protection of NATO. Why develop a unified army? The justification is clear, Europe has a war at our doorstep, and they must prepare for the worst. To create a common army and to re-arm the European continent. I would like to emphasize here the word “re-arm” as the EU has precisely changed their policy plan name from the rather crude and more shocking word “re-arm” to “readiness”, more aligning with the European peace-making values. The true benefits of this new policy are several, which helps achieve the European proposition: by unifying the army you are not only generating another point of supranational competence towards a more hegemonized international organization but also reactivating in the short term the re-industrialization of the EU as to achieve the military capacity proposed. This, while at the same time easing Trump’s commercial tension by generating more export benefits for the US as army intel will be needed from the Union.

The second point regarding the enlargement project of the European Union will help the organization stretch its spread in the continent towards the common European values it portrays. A question arises; wouldn’t it be more logical to firstly focus on your “domestic” problems rather than continuing to grow? For the Union to keep growing is key as it helps the organization remain as united as ever as it reaffirms itself to yet still be a key organization for the European continent in the 21st Century. This provides reassurance on the project and stronger border protection against plausible attacks. It also helps gain higher international recognition, crucial at a time when the union has lost one of its strongest allies.

The last point, regarding climate change, highlights how important it is to remain resilient on climate change policies towards the 2030 goal. They want to lead the climate change race internationally with the goal of other regions to later follow their policymaking. This strategy can, eventually, benefit the EU not only because of the lowering of the carbon emissions of their member countries but also because of declaring themselves as the sole international entity with a solid climate change plan. Achieving this status would help them define a legislative framework on associative regions like Latin America or North Africa that would serve as a double channel to deepen commercial ties, essential for the Union.

A personal recollection of the topic

The European Union has the chance to come out of this crisis stronger than ever, more united, and powerful than before, with a multipolar world while having a true independent saying and action on international debates. The Union is going through several crises, both domestically and internationally, that have certainly served as a wake-up call for the continent. The European Union is the only international organization with a form of positive integration throughout its history, and they have the chance to demonstrate this one more time.

The fate of the Union to become a future international actor relies on the willingness of its states to place their trust in an organization that has proven to be beneficial for the growth of its states in international positioning. We know this because the strength this union generates in the region has caused the rejection of world powers as they realize the loss of influence in the long term is inevitable.

Now this conclusion is straight forward, yet realistic. It has been proven that when the EU has acted as a unified entity, we have benefited more. Unity is the key to the prevalence of the organization.

France, Italy or Germany, as key diplomatic figures of Europe, are not blind and they do not want this to become a reality. Why throw away that power? States’ cosmovision on the international order is distant from the EU’s vision; they are driven by different international theories. Therefore, the question is whether key states are willing to give out this power towards the common good.

This challenge makes exploring European leaders’ perception on this power lending necessary to address with precision the question proposed in this essay. The one clear concluding remark regarding this topic is that the next five years of the European Union will define the organization for the coming decades. They will set up the future authority of the union, both inside and outside the organization.

I would like to finish this brief article referencing one of the best scripted pictures I have seen in some time as it could not better define what the EU is and what it's going through. As Cardinal Laurence said in the movie, Conclave: To work together, and to grow together, we must be tolerant. (…) Certainty; certainty is the great enemy of unity; certainty is the deadly enemy of tolerance. As we live through a moment full of uncertainties, let us have a united Europe.