Press "Enter" to skip to content

The European Union – A Geopolitical Actor?

When in November 2019 Ursula von der Leyen, then Candidate for European Commission President, now elected European Commission President, outlined her six political priorities for the next five years of her Commission, she made sure to emphasize that she aspires to lead a “geopolitical Commission”. The aim was to strengthen the European Union’s standing as an international actor, which was summarized under “A stronger Europe in the world” and is one of the six key priorities of this Commission. The other five priorities are: A European Green Deal; A Europe fit for the digital age; An economy that works for people; Promoting our European way of life; A new push for European democracy.

However, when the incoming Commission announced its branding as “geopolitical”, it remained unclear why it sold itself as such, as argued in an article by the European Policy Center (EPC). The EPC further explains that, while the notion Geopolitics is typically” used to define and explain the behaviour of a state in relation to its geographic location”, applying the term in the context of EU politics goes to show that the EU increasingly steps into a place that was usually occupied by nation-states. Most likely, the EU’s geopolitical work will focus on the EU external action and relations to other states. Given the current political reality, the timing for this “geopolitical commission” does also not come as a surprise.

But is the EU really ready to act as a geopolitical actor or even a geopolitical power?

The answer is: Probably not. While the EU is active all around the globe, a major economic power, the worlds’ largest trading block, and actively working on various issues in different regions, that by far does not necessarily make it “geopolitical”.

Stay up to Date – Subscribe to our newsletter.

Moreover, several issues compromise its foreign policy and external actions, and thereby its “geopolitical” actorness.

Above all, the divergences of several member states and the fact that there is no unanimous line on specific foreign policy issues impede its ability to act as a global power and truly geopolitical actor.

In addition, the EU is slow to act, primarily also because consensus for specific actions in its external policies is hard to achieve.

Also, Brexit might impact the EU’s standing as a geopolitical actor. While it might unblock certain blockades in discussions around foreign and security policy and resolve disputes, the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU, being a United Nations Security Council member and among the EU’s biggest military powers, may still leave a significant vacuum.

Lastly, the EU is not a military power, and it is highly unlikely that it might evolve into one soon. Its geopolitical power and actorness are therefore reliant on its soft power and economic appeal to achieve its geopolitical goals, as Project Syndicate rightly argues.

Truth be told: The EU consists primarily of a range of smaller countries, who neither aspire nor have the capabilities to step up and act more globally and geopolitically. While the EU is undoubtedly an attractive (economic) actor for third countries, its standing as a geopolitical actor is relatively low.

To transform the EU into a geopolitical actor, it must come to terms with the fact that the Common Foreign and Security Policy needs a serious and comprehensive revision. Moreover, EU member states need to act more coherent to resemble a coherent foreign policy and geopolitical actor. Otherwise, the notion of a “geopolitical commission” and “geopolitically oriented EU” will remain an appealing slogan, but the EU will fail to deliver on its promises.

Sources

European Commission: The European Commission’s priorities, 6 Commission priorities for 2019-24, https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024_en

European Parliament (2020): The von der Leyen Commission’s priorities for 2019-2024, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/646148/EPRS_BRI(2020)646148_EN.pdf

Gros, D. (2019): What EU “Geopolitical” Power Will Cost, Project Syndicate, https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/eu-geopolitical-commission-economic-power-by-daniel-gros-2019-12

Subotić, S. (2019): A “Geopolitical” Commission – What’s in the Name?, European Policy Centre, https://cep.org.rs/en/blogs/a-geopolitical-commission/

The New START: Discursive effectiveness but little congruence with what it proposes

The extension of the New START has finally come to a happy ending, where the expectations of many have fallen short after failing to reach broad consensuses on START II and III. However, while it is often presented as a positive development that the world’s nuclear armament has been reduced considerably, it is often simultaneously ignored that the ones that remain are more sophisticated and potentially more destructive.

An Introduction to the Eastern Mediterranean – The Socio-Economic Challenges

The Eastern Mediterranean has been the historic crossroads of four regions: Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Except for being the “home” of their multiple and diverse geographic affiliations and varied political identities, it also constitutes a territory of great strategic importance. This article discusses the socio-economic problems of the region, in order to establish an understanding of the current events unfolding in the region.

Censoring Sexual Identity – Hungary bans LGBT+ Content for Minors

While Homophobia in Hungary is rising, the Fidesz government actively furthers the stigmatisation and marginalisation of the LGBT+ community. Ahead of the 2022 election, the government introduced another law that increases penalties for pedophiles while at the same time outlawing the "promotion of homosexuality" for those under 18 - thereby censoring sexual identity and conflating pedophilia with homosexuality.

The value of thinking about ‘just war’ in a world where war is just war

Talking about the ethics of war over Ukraine seems abstract and naïve in light of Donbas and its abandoned villages. It seems pointless to think about just war in a world of suffering where war is just war. Yet, it is because the suffering of war is real that we should think and talk about the ethics of war. Only when we talk can we take a stance, constrain violence, and hold military leaders accountable.

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Quo Vademus
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.