The European Union’s Geopolitical Challenge: A Peaceful Bloc in a Competitive World

Prof. Dr. Tarık Oğuzlu

The question of how the future of the European Union will unfold is of paramount importance in a world where great power competition is accelerating and the building blocks of the liberal international order are facing serious challenges. How the EU will position itself as an international actor in the emerging world order is a question that not only Europeans but the rest of the world is seeking an answer to.

Having achieved economic, social, and political integration under the security guarantee provided by the United States through NATO, will the EU become a strategically autonomous actor in the emerging second Cold War, or will it turn into a mere playing field for great power competition?

Having embarked on its journey based on the principles of multilateralism, multiculturalism, pluralism, mutual economic interdependence, the decline of absolute sovereignty, the rule of law, diplomacy, liberal democracy, and universal human rights, can the EU preserve these gains in a world where geopolitical thinking and practices are gaining momentum? To what extent can the EU remain post-modern in today’s increasingly modernizing world?

The most significant difference between the EU on the one hand and the US, Russia, and China on the other is that the EU is a Kantian actor, while the others are Hobbesian. It was hoped that the EU would inspire the transformation of international politics from a conflict-ridden and war-prone structure into one that produces peace and stability. The goal of the EU’s integration process was not only to civilize Europe but also to enable the transformation of the jungle at the global level where the strong do what they want and the weak suffer their fate into a zoo where the strong are constrained by institutions and rules. However, today we see that the EU, far from inspiring others, is struggling to preserve its own gains in an increasingly jungle-like world. This is no easy task, as the EU faces serious challenges.

First and foremost, there are the challenges posed by Putin’s Russia to the European security architecture. The violation of the territorial integrity of an independent and sovereign country, Ukraine, through the use of military force, and the pursuit of an imperialist foreign policy based on the concept of spheres of influence, threaten the EU’s liberal and Kantian understanding of security. The strategy of transforming and civilizing Russia through trade and mutual economic interdependence, led by Germany, has failed. Will the threats and concerns emanating from Russia be sufficient to help awaken the EU from its geopolitical hibernation?

The second fundamental challenge facing the Europeans is the declining US strategic interest and engagement in the European continent in recent years. From the Obama to the Biden administration, all recent US administrations have placed greater strategic importance on the Indo-Pacific region. The bipartisan consensus in the US to contain and counter China’s rise has led to expectations of a gradual reduction of the US military presence in the Middle East and Europe. By calling on its European allies to assume more responsibility for their own defense, can the US succeed in shaking the EU out of its strategic lethargy?

In the context of transatlantic relations, the message America is sending to Europe is very clear: Europe, which has failed to develop the necessary capacity for self-defense and has not broken the habit of relying on America’s support for its security, will no longer automatically receive America’s help. If Trump becomes president again, Europeans will face even more challenging times. In fact, regardless of who sits in the White House, America has been warning its European allies since the 1960s that they need to take on more responsibility for their security. However, due to the intense environment of the Cold War and the severity of the existential threat posed by the Soviet Union, Americans chose to overlook European complacency and freeriding. But now the era has changed, and Americans are calling on Europeans to spend more on their own defense with a louder voice.

So, does America really want the EU to increase its military capabilities and become a unified strategic actor? While the answer to this question is not clear-cut, what is certain is that America never wants to lose its dominant position in European security. Even if the drum is to be in European hands, America wants to hold the stick. According to America, if the EU is to develop its defense capabilities, it should do so within NATO as the European wing of the alliance. Otherwise, there would be no guarantee that America will continue to have the final say in a Europe where NATO loses its meaning and function.

Another challenge facing the EU is the fear Europeans have of each other. As long as NATO and America’s dominant position in Europe continued, there was no need for Europeans to worry about each other’s intentions. But how would German rearmament be perceived in Europe if the situation changes? How much can countries neighboring Russia rely on France and Germany in America’s absence? Who can guarantee that geopolitical and realpolitik reflexes will not resurface in a Europe where militarization is increasing? How long can NATO, which has made it possible to keep America in, Russia out, and Germany down, continue to fulfill these roles?

We know that America wants to transform NATO into a global security organization and one day wants countries like Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea to join the alliance. In contrast, it is no secret that Europeans want NATO to remain primarily a European defense organization and continue to protect Europeans against threats from countries neighboring Europe, such as Russia. So, will this strategic difference widen the transatlantic rift in the medium and long term?

The answer to this question lies in another global challenge that worries Europeans. Illiberal authoritarian countries like Russia and China are trying to break the West’s global hegemony by challenging the building blocks of the liberal international order, deepening the rift in transatlantic relations, and attempting to conquer Europe from within through divide-and-rule policies

Given these circumstances, and with developments in the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific regions increasingly interconnected, it seems that America and its European allies have no choice but to cooperate more closely. America needs the cooperation of its European allies to counter threats and coercion from China. On the other hand, the continuation of America’s security support against Russia depends on Europe taking on more responsibility in the field of defense.

There is a much more significant challenge ahead for Europeans that could potentially endanger both the EU integration process and the EU’s ability to develop a common defense and foreign policy. Since the 2008 global economic crisis, far-right and far-left movements, which have been gaining strength in European politics day by day, have been questioning the founding norms and values of the EU. The EU’s bureaucratic and elitist structure as an institution, the fact that EU decision-making processes do not offer much opportunity for participatory democracy, and the fact that the EU is one of the main pillars of the neoliberal globalization process are all feeding the populist and nationalist movements and parties in European politics. Parallel to their objections to the EU’s founding philosophy and current functioning, almost all of these political movements believe that a foreign policy based on nationalism, protectionism, anti-immigration, pragmatism, and crude national interests should be pursued.

Therefore, the rise of far-right and far-left political movements in key EU member countries like France, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands not only makes the EU’s post-modern identity contentious but also provides countries like the U.S., Russia, and China with greater opportunities to intervene in European politics. As center-right and center-left political parties lose ground and far-right and far-left parties gain strength, crises of governability and legitimacy in European politics are deepening. Such an environment does  not allow the EU to become a strategic actor, but rather enables other global actors to extend their geopolitical competition into Europe

Despite all these challenges, I believe the EU experience represents a significant achievement in the context of humanity’s historical journey. The vision that the EU first lived out internally and then hoped to inspire others is undoubtedly very valuable. What we are witnessing now is the EU, which started its life by hoping to transform the world, is increasingly struggling with the possibility of the world making Europe resemble itself. The confusion, stress, and anxiety experienced by Europeans have never been so visible. The idea that one must be Hobbesian, realist, and modern to remain Kantian, liberal, and post-modern must be quite disturbing. This process of questioning seems likely to continue for some time.