When European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen took office in 2019, she promised to make the EU a “geopolitical” powerhouse. As the Commission’s mandate ends, many Europeans understandably ask whether the Union suffers from multiple geostrategic illusions.
Recent events have shown how dysfunctional the EU leadership has become, especially in foreign policy and defence. The predominance of nationalistic priorities means that the 27-member bloc constantly struggles to agree on a coherent foreign policy. Most member states resent the talk about moving to a federal union model to make the bloc a respected superpower.
Some political analysts fear that the EU is no more than the equivalent of a pan-European NGO that is well-meaning but lacks the clout and credibility to be taken seriously by other protagonists in global politics. The EU has not moved much from being a common market with idealistic ambitions to becoming the US of Europe. Today, most member states are struggling with a secular economic decline − a state of little or no economic growth – in other words, an environment where the economy is essentially stagnant.
Yet, the 27 member states cannot agree to project economic and military might at a time of growing global instability. They cannot even address the migration pressures that keep building upon their borders.
The war in Israel and how the EU leaders reacted is one depressing example of why the Union is sliding into irrelevance in global politics. As soon as the war erupted, European Enlargement Commissioner Olivér Várhelyil announced that the EU would “immediately” suspend €691 million in aid to the Palestinian authority. Commissioner Janez Lenarčič contradicted his colleague a few hours later, insisting the aid “will continue as long as needed”.
The Commission’s press office tried to limit the damage of these dissonant reactions by announcing that the EU would conduct an “urgent review” of some aid programmes to ensure that funds would not be funnelled into terrorism. The EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell insisted: “We will have to support more, not less, the Palestinians.”
The EU is slowly sliding into irrelevance as mutual internal trade benefits are the weak glue keeping it together
Over just one day, the Commission went from announcing it would suspend all aid to the Palestinians to signalling it would increase the flow of funds. Political analysts compare the EU’s bumbling reactions to those of the US.
US President Joe Biden reacted immediately when the Israel war broke out. He said: “In this moment, we must be crystal clear. We stand with Israel. We stand with Israel. We will ensure Israel has what it needs to take care of its citizens, defend itself, and respond to the attack.” When the war took a turn for the worse, he pressured Israel to refrain from vindictive tactics against innocent Palestinian civilians.
The EU leadership suffers from a disorder that afflicts many national leaders – managing by theatrics and glitzy public relations. Commission President von der Leyen travelled to Israel to show solidarity with Israel immediately after the war broke out. Member state leaders were unhappy with the Commission’s president initiative as the EU’s foreign policy is usually agreed upon among the member states’ leaders.
Borrell went as far as issuing an unusual public rebuke of his boss. He argued that Von der Leyen is not entitled to represent the EU views on foreign policy coordinated between member states.
Von der Leyen may be acting this way because of her still-not-confirmed ambition to run for a second term as the Commission’s president. It could also be that she is frustrated by the constant bickering among the member states’ leaders on critical issues of importance to the Union, including immigration and foreign policy. But whatever her motivation, there is no way she can project an image of unity to those outside the EU.
Von der Leyen travelled to Tunisia in July to conclude a deal with President Kais Saied that involved a €1 billion support deal to help the North African country manage irregular migration. Tunisia is now refusing to honour this deal and has returned the initial payments made by the EU. This did not go well with some European national leaders, who argued that the agreement with Tunisia was no more than a public relations exercise built on the previous failed models of pumping money into undemocratic North African countries.
The EU is slowly sliding into irrelevance as mutual internal trade benefits are the weak glue keeping it together. Still more worrying is that the alternative – a dissolution of the Union – is an even more daunting prospect for many European citizens.