In my long (40 years), undistinguished career in marketing communications and journalism, I have had a chance to work with some very good and some not very good bosses. However, there was one in particular, who had common sense without being too common. He taught me a valuable lesson. In describing success, he said, “There are three kinds of people: those that make things happen, those that watch things happen, and those that wonder ‘WHAT HAPPENED?’” He ended with a warning: “Don’t be the third one.”
That quote comes to mind now as the EU struggles to adjust to the current geopolitical landscape in the Middle East, with a fragmented response to the conflict.
It represents a shining example of the category that my boss told me to avoid.
The EU has tried to act cohesively with an official stance that condemns terrorism, supports Israel’s right to defend itself, and a call for civilian protection and humanitarian access. But in practice it lacks a single, strong geopolitical voice. Its response to the American and Israeli strikes on Iran has been described as “shameful, stunned, sidelined, and disunited,” by Sven Kühn von Burgsdorf, the EU’s former representative to the Palestinian territories. While such a partisan comment from a former EU authority in the region might be expected, it still reflects a lack of EU rationality.
There are several key structural problems behind the EU’s lack of direction and vain attempts to be relevant. Primary among them are:
Foreign policy resolutions that often require unanimity of the 27 Member States with differing national interests and priorities
Leadership that is sometimes fragmented
A heavy reliance on NATO and the US for hard power
The EU has been largely sidelined diplomatically because major diplomatic initiatives have been led by the US and regional powers (Israel, Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia). It has been largely confined to distributing humanitarian aid and calling for restraint. Despite involvement from figures like European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, the EU has not led ceasefire negotiations or been a central broker, remaining on the sidelines of real decision-making.
Are there signs that the EU will stop wondering what happened and start to make things happen? Yes. There are real signs the EU is trying to change this dynamic, though it’s still a work in progress, the hope is to complete a shift to a new, proactive voice and force.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has framed this as building a more “geopolitical Commission.” This represents a core vision behind most EU attempts at change right now.
However, to accomplish these far-reaching goals institutional reform will have to be made quickly. It will require skills beyond teaching the world to sing in perfect harmony. First, there is growing recognition that EU decision-making is too slow. In response there are discussions about moving away from unanimity in foreign policy and allowing qualified majority voting.
Of course, there might be a backlash, which will pit small state sensitivities, fearing the loss of influence, against big state ones. In addition, changes require treaty reform, which are politically difficult. But these reforms are not only justified but bracing.
The EU cannot afford to stand still and make ineffective, self-righteous declarations and symbolic gestures. It must actively try to become a stronger geopolitical actor. It must develop an earnest arrogance; an air of authority that has less to do just with being there and more to do with being listened to and consulted.
The late Chinese Communist party leader Mao Zedong coined the expression: “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” The EU hopes to increase its production of military hardware, as a defense and deterrence against enemy forces. To achieve that it should further pursue initiatives such as: increased joint procurement and defense spending, an expansion of initiatives like Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), and focus on ammunition production and military mobility.
Finally, the EU must move from being a “rules-based economic bloc” towards becoming a strategic power by developing all the tools of unity to fully act like one. More assertive leadership from policymakers like Ursula von der Leyen and Emmanuel Macron would also be helpful. It must convince Europeans of the usefulness of achieving distant rewards for immediate sacrifices.
There must be a sincere realization by EU and its Member States that they can’t be a significant geopolitical player anymore by being “nice,” which may be good for legitimacy, but is bad for crisis response. This is not to suggest abandoning adherence to international law, rather, it underscores the need to pair principled commitments with greater decisiveness and strategic capability in times of crisis. A major structural shift is needed before the EU changes from an entity that wonders WHAT HAPPENED to one that makes things happen.
