Dear listeners,

My chosen question for today is what we have learnt about the EU as a global actor since
violence broke out in the Middle East on October 7th, 2023. My reason for choosing this
question is simply based on the fact that I have followed its developments from the beginning
and believe that I am well-equipped to come to a sound conclusion. Firstly, I will give a brief
history of the relevant conflict. Then I will explain how the EU has reacted and continues to
react as well as the public opinion regarding those actions. I will then attempt to evaluate
what this says about the EU as a whole. Lastly, a question will be posed to the audience
which aims to get different viewpoints regarding the conflict.

On October 7th, Hamas launched an unprecedented surprise attack against Israel and
infiltrated the country by air, land, and sea. This attack soured an already negative
relationship between Israel and Palestine. This conflict has since been ongoing with an
estimated death toll of over 20,000 in Gaza since the initial attack began. No doubt this is a
humanitarian crisis, making EU involvement no surprise.

According to Joseph Borrell, We Europeans, not only out of self-interest but also out of our
moral and political responsibility, have to reinforce our commitment to achieving peace
between Israel and Palestine. A significant part of the EU’s future global role, and in
particular our relations with many countries of the so-called Global South, will depend on our
commitment to help solve this conflict.

Initially, the EU was criticized in the form of Ursula Von der Leyen. The main criticism is
biased support towards Israel. Despite this, The EU is the world’s top provider of aid to the
Palestinians but holds little leverage over Israel, despite being its biggest trading partner. The
27 member countries are also deeply divided in their approach. But as the death toll in Gaza
mounts, so do calls for a halt to the fighting. This in return raises questions about the EU as a
global actor.

The EU has been criticized as having no influence as far as international actors go due to
their argued soft power. I believe that this is evident throughout this conflict. The EU’s main
aim is to work towards a lasting and sustainable peace. Despite the EU's emphasis on good
governance, democracy, and human rights to prevent violent extremism in the Middle East, I
argue that the Union is declining as a ‘normative power’ as it has prioritised a ‘security first’
'-centred approach. Furthermore, the European Journal of International Security states that the
Union downplays democracy and good governance for fear of alienating authoritarian key
partners in the region. According to Stefanie Babst, the strategic advisor and former nato
deputy assistant secretary general, Europe is affected in many ways by the repercussions of
the war between Israel and Hamas. This is due to large immigrant communities from the
Middle East. Meaning that the EU should take a central role in the conflict.

Instead, however, in its response, Europe has been once again united in disunity as per
Carnegie Europe. Instead of presenting itself as an actor capable of geopolitical action, the
EU has taken foreign policy differences between institutions and member states to task. The
EU’s vulnerability concerning the conflict in the Middle East is less about freedom of speech,
refugees, and terrorism, and more about the EU’s (tarnished) legitimacy and authority states
Mary C. Murphy. Due to the absence of a military presence, attempts by the EU such as the
recognition of a Palestinian state have been disregarded.
According to the Arab news website, this conflict has become a litmus test of whether Europe
can live up to what Borrell claims is its global role, which stems from how universal
principles and values are defended. Furthermore, there is the claim that Europeans must be
among the keepers of international and humanitarian law. As seen by the progression of this
case, this standard has not been fulfilled. Instead, it is claimed that the leaders of the
continent have marginalized Europe as a power in international affairs and sown discord in its
societies. Whether the standard set will be fulfilled can only be determined as time goes on.

My question for the listeners is what is one action that the EU should take to improve their
reputation as a global actor regarding this conflict using the European External Action
Service? This is keeping in mind that as stated by Stefanie Babst, realistically, the EU’s
ability to make a major contribution to managing this crisis is modest.

Thank you for listening.

ANSWER:

How will the outcome of the 2024 US Presidential Election impact on the EU?

According to Germany's Defence Minister Boris Pistorius, it would be a catastrophe for

Donald Trump to win this year’s US presidential election. He further stated that whoever
comes to the White House, one case would be a catastrophe, and the other case would be
much better. This shows how influential the US presidential election is and its impact in
Europe and specifically Germany. The election would have an impact on all transatlantic
ties.

Trump during his tenure was criticised for not sharing the financial and military burden of
NATO and threatening to pull US troops out of Europe. Germany therefore cannot avoid
being included in the US election debates. The European Council on Foreign Relations
website states that compared to Trump, Biden is depicted as weak on allies such as
Germany, allowing them to freeload and take advantage of America’s security guarantees
and unfair trade agreements. Throughout recent history, regardless of which party governs
in Berlin, Germany’s relationships with Republican presidents have been tense, while those
with Democratic ones have been positive. This shows that ultimately, whatever the result,
Germany would need to cooperate as much as possible.

Link: https://ecfr.eu/article/the-german-scapegoat-berlins-inevitable-role-in-the-us-
presidential-election/

Should decision-making in the CFSP be reformed?

In times of crisis such as Russia's aggression against Ukraine, the EU needs to be able to
make prompt decisions which result in effective actions. This is to ensure that the EU as a
foreign policy actor can protect its values and citizens. This is problematic when decisions
require unanimity. This process can slow down the EUs ability to act which consequently
affects results as intended by the Common Foreign and Security Policy. The solution to this
seems to come in the form of qualified majority voting.

Certain EU foreign policy areas already use qualified majority decision-making, based on
Article 31 (2) TEU. The provisions in the TEU could be expanded onto more areas such as
international human rights to reach easier and more flexible decisions. Another area that
could benefit from qualified majority voting to make the European voice stronger is when
the High Representative makes a public statement on behalf of the EU. The speech could be
agreed upon by the Council.

Ultimately, there is a need to reform decision-making in the CFSP. In these recent times of
crisis, the EU needs to be able to make fast and effective decisions. Though there are
concerns about QMV because consensus has historically been the norm, perhaps for the
collective interest, cooperation and trust need to be enhanced to overcome challenging
times.

Does China pose ‘a threat’ to the EU?

According to Bruno Lete, transatlantic fellow for security and defence at The German
Marshall Fund in Brussels, ‘Transatlantic views on China have long been diverging, but
recently they are gradually converging.’ However, due to economic interdependencies, the
EU maintains a reasonable approach to China. According to EU member states, China is a
strategic competitor. This is the only view agreed upon seeing as member states are not
unanimous on whether China poses a threat to the EU.

The importance of the EU-China relationship was demonstrated at the time of the Trump
administration. The ‘America First, and Against China’ policy which was directed at the EU,
did not turn out favourable for the US. Consequently, making the Biden administration
understand that the EU has its relationship with Beijing. In Germany for example, China is a
major player in e-mobility. Therefore, reducing dependencies could prove to be difficult.
France has been of the view that there need to be more restrictions regarding Chinese
inputs. This shows that it is inconclusive whether China is a threat to the EU.

How would Ukrainian membership of the union change the EU’s foreign policy?

The EU is known for slow and soft policy decision-making. However, in response to the crisis,
it reacted quickly by imposing against Russia the strongest sanctions in its history and
sending military assistance. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been the cause of
unprecedented actions from the EU as it relates to security, defence, and enlargement. This
and the possible Ukrainian membership undoubtedly will broaden the EU’s external action.

The war in Ukraine has demonstrated a stronger focus on hard power by the EU. This may
increase the EU’s ability to intervene as a military player in the future. The use of sanctions
against Kyiev were the strictest penalties the EU had ever applied abroad. This showed a
change in the use of foreign policy tools. Comparably, over the years, in conflicts such as
Syria or Myanmar, the EU had reacted with sanctions though with limited success. According
to diplomats in Brussels, it will be hard for the EU to refrain from offering some form of
accession status to Ukraine. It is argued that the EU may use the enlargement policy as a
way to strengthen ties with neighbouring countries. This will be done by offering them
incentives to align their policies with the EU’s own and leverage bilateral cooperation to
balance pressure from foreign powers.

Overall, the situation in Ukraine can allow the EU to have a greater role in foreign policy
compared to previous cases where it is argued that ‘Brussels has, more often than not,
lacked the will and cohesion to act in its day-to-day foreign policy.’

Link: https://reliefweb.int/report/world/war-ukraine-raises-new-questions-eu-foreign-policy

What is the future for the EU as a human rights promoter?

Even though the European Union has adopted the Charter of Fundamental Rights with the
European Court of Justice acting as an enforcer, the effectiveness of this human rights
system is questionable. The war of aggression against Ukraine is only one of the major
issues faced as it relates to human rights. Alongside this is the legacy of COVID and Europe’s
response to it, climate change and attacks against the EU’s democratic institutions. All these
issues are evidence of human rights violations despite all measures put in place to suggest
otherwise. This emphasizes the fact that the human rights construction within the EU is in
need of some reform.

The Director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights stated that ‘many
disadvantaged members of the EU general populations are not greatly interested in human
rights. He further states that ‘human rights are about and for people, but we seriously
underinvest in telling them this’. This shows that there is a long way to go for the EU as a
human rights promoter. The system must be made more effective in order to overcome its
weaknesses so that it can overcome the many crises within Europe. However, the future is
hopeful as human rights institutions remain resilient no matter how much pressure they
succumb to.

To what extent is democratic backsliding within the EU detrimental to the EU as an

international actor?

The European Union faces severe cases of democratic backsliding, even though it is a
democratic organization. This is detrimental to the EU as an international actor but also
within Europe. The EU is undermined if it is ineffective in dealing with member states who
violate their commitment to democracy and the rule of law. However, if action is taken that
is considered too drastic, this may split the EU. This shows that both internal and external
democratic backsliding may be detrimental.
Benedetta Lobina argues that ‘the desire for unity, however, should not supersede the need
for decisive action on the rule of law front’. She further states that the EU finds itself
between a rock and a hard place. It can be argued that the EU’s soft approach towards
Poland has undermined its rule of law resulting in its effect being detrimental to the EU as
an international actor. Furthermore, in Hungary due to the absence of a firm stance, the
actions of the Council have been made ineffective by undue external influences. Overall, EU
institutions must protect the principle of democracy within the Union, and the failure of this
may be detrimental.

What are the most important changes to EU foreign and security policy since Russia
began its war of aggression against Ukraine in February 2022?

There have been several changes as it relates to EU foreign policy since Russia's war of
aggression against Ukraine. This is because the aggression is seen as undermining
democracy. Therefore, support has been provided by the EU for Ukraine. Firstly, the
importance of EU-NATO relations regarding security was emphasized by the commitment to
take more responsibility. The Strategic compass was introduced which aims to strengthen
the EU’s defense and security policy by 2030. This can be concluded to be the most
important change. As mentioned, Russia’s aggression affects EU interests due to the
violation of one of its main values. The aims are to set up a joint defense procurement task
force and to adopt European defense investment programme regulations.

These recommendations were proposed by the Committee on Foreign Affairs to the

European Parliament and Council. It is believed that strategic autonomy is the way to
‘ensuring a holistic approach to EU foreign, security and defense policy’.