What becomes of the Europe-Russia dichotomy?
In today’s complex and crisis-ridden world, there are numerous small and large actors present.
The scope of action in today’s international relations is vast. In this field, non-governmental and supra-governmental actors, as well as national, continental, and global actors, are making their presence known.
In this context, where does the European Union stand as a continental institution with global ambitions?
What role does it play in the crises in Gaza and Lebanon? How effective is it in unifying European policies regarding Ukraine? What is the agenda of the European Union’s foreign policy? These questions are significant because there is a considerable gap between the claims and the actual influence of the European Union. This, in turn, raises a broad and pervasive question: How can the European Union’s policy be evaluated in general? In response, it should be said that in the realm of foreign relations, the European Union can be assessed through three phenomena and issues: institution-building, framework-setting, and of course, a deficit in global power.
Since the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, the European Union has undoubtedly managed to establish a bureaucratic and extensive set-up in the field of foreign relations. In fact, the European Union, with an institution called the Foreign Policy Commission, has formed a supra-European foreign ministry.
The Foreign Policy Commissioner acts like a foreign minister, and since 2013, with the establishment of the Foreign Policy Action Service, the Foreign Policy Commission has been expanding.
This institution-building has led to the establishment of the European Union’s representative office and the appointment of its ambassadors to various countries and international institutions. However, this foreign policy bureaucracy, despite its comprehensive expansion and horizontal and vertical engagement in regional and international discussions, has faced a major challenge in consensus-building.
Foreign policy decisions must be made based on consensus within the European Union, but the diversity and differences among its 27 members make reaching a consensus difficult.
The countries of Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western Europe have different histories in terms of foreign relations, and this affects their current decision-making and, more importantly, their interpretations of international issues. Josep Borrell, whose term as Foreign Policy Commissioner is coming to an end and who is one of the most important former officials of Spain, has an interesting comparison regarding these differences in the preface he wrote for the book on the European Union’s foreign policy.
He says that Polish colleagues and friends see the end of the Cold War and Poland’s liberation from the Soviet Union as owed to two actors: John Paul II, the then-leader of the world’s Catholics in the 1980s, and the United States. In the view of the Poles, 40 years of communist dominance ended with these two actors.
Borrell says he tells them that these same two actors have a different meaning for Spaniards. The 40-year dictatorship of General Franco in Spain was due to the support of these two actors: the United States and the Catholic Church were Franco’s supporters.
The comparison and contrast in the perception of the role of these two actors is significant and noteworthy. However, it should also be considered that the European Union has managed to reach specific and unified frameworks in the field of foreign relations. These frameworks are sometimes broad, such as the document related to the common foreign and security policy, and in specific areas, they reach unified frameworks on issues like relations with Canada. Documents related to neighborhood policy and framing the European Union’s foreign behavior with various regions, such as relations with the African Union and ASEAN in East Asia, are among these documents that have been unanimously drafted and approved and are pursued in practice. The number of these frameworks is considerable, to the extent that the European Union can be considered a framework-building institution. In the real scene of international relations, the European Union faces a deficit in power as an actor.
The global power of the European Union is not like that of the United States. In fewer international phenomena and crises, at least in the past decade, has the European Union been able to play a brilliant, independent, and significant role as a unified actor.
In this regard, firstly, attention should be paid to the relationship between the European Union and the United States. This relationship is close and especially intertwined in terms of norms and values, but the nature of the European Union’s power, the nature of political developments within the United States, and the differences in priorities and international sensitivities between these two actors have prevented the European Union from playing its desired role.
Especially when political fluctuations in America rise due to presidential elections, the pillars of the relationship between America and the European Union are challenged, and perhaps, in short, the independent operational power of the European Union decreases.
Secondly, there is the complex relationship with China. In a broad perspective, the relationship of the European Union with China is influenced by three conflicting perceptions and views of Beijing in Brussels: China as a partner, China as a competitor, and China as an adversary.
Whatever the case, China’s unified global power and coherent action challenge the European Union in comparison. Thirdly, there is the relationship with Russia.
Significant and decisive milestones between the European Union and Russia have passed, but in this relationship, the history, nature, and destiny of the Ukraine crisis since 2022 have given the European Union a different character.
The Ukraine crisis, on one hand, is perhaps the most unifying element in the European Union in recent years.
On the other hand, the European Union is nervous, frustrated, and angry.
This war, which is the most significant battle on European soil since World War II, has exposed the power imbalance of the European Union as an international actor and made it more reliant on the United States than ever before. Whatever the case, the European Union, as an international actor, is an institution-builder, a framework-setter, and, of course, accompanied by a power deficit in the realm of foreign relations.
