Julien Warnand / EPA
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen
The European need to become independent from the USA is more urgent than ever, but Europe risks entering the path of “illiberal liberalism” in the name of defending international law.
The US military operation against Iran dramatically demonstrated the need for EU autonomy in global affairs. In response to the situation, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called for a new EU foreign policy to guide the bloc towards “European independence”.
But it is not enough for the EU to simply oppose the Trump administration. You also need to resolve a “illiberal liberalism” confusion that affects the way it began to seek European autonomy. The EU seems unable to decide whether to seek independence to preserve the liberal order or to overcome it.
Trump’s second term intensified the EU’s drive for independence. It led European governments to dedicate themselves much more to reducing its military and security dependence of the US and reducing its broader external trade vulnerabilities.
This is now the undisputed driving force behind most European foreign and security policies, says Richard Youngsprofessor of International and European Politics at the University of Warwick, in an article in .
But criticizing the current US government does not in itself equate to a vision for the EU’s place in the radically transformed international order. Current debates have focused excessively on separation and resistance to the USA.
This creates a false sense of comfortsince reacting to Trump’s excesses seems simpler than defining a coherent geopolitical vision based on order. The EU needs to question not only what it fights for, but also what it stands for, and that remains unclear – at least beyond the rhetorical clichés.
An overly self-satisfied celebration of the EU’s incipient resolution against the US – regarding Iran, Venezuela, Greenland and tariffs – distracts the bloc from defining the ultimate goal of strengthening European autonomy.
In all of this, the EU shows signs of what in psychology is known as “downward adaptation syndrome“.It appears to feel unjustifiably superior to itself compared to the abominably low standards of predatory diplomacy and lawlessness set by the Trump administration.
French President Emmanuel Macron’s speech at the Munich security conference, in which he simply enumerated all the ways in which Europe stands out in contrast to the US, was a particularly egregious case of this.
Commentators also repeatedly celebrated the superiority of European rhetoric about peace, freedom, rules and democracy compared to the civilizational chauvinism of MAGA. These perspectives set a very low bar and do not question whether European policies actually follow their own stated principles.
An illiberal turn
In practice, the EU itself is move away from the same liberal norms which rightly criticizes the US for abandoning it.
Even though this political drift is obviously much more subtle than what is occurring in US foreign policies, it raises questions about what the EU is actually seeking to do with its emerging strategic autonomy.
Currently, contradictory logics abound as the bloc moves towards greater independence.
The EU is establishing partnerships with illiberal regimessuch as the Gulf States and autocracies in Asia, ostensibly in the name of preserving liberalism. She courts other powers in desperate need, apparently as a way of demonstrating that she needs them less. It adopts coercive power supposedly to contain coercive power. It adopts distorted trade preferences in the name of defending free trade.
In many ways, as the EU resists illiberal powers, it becomes increasingly like them, although it frames this resistance as a form of defend your traditional liberal identity.
In doing so, it increasingly confuses two very distinct objectives: protecting itself and protecting progressive values in international politics.
Although military capacity is necessary to deter territorial invasions, the EU needs other types of resources and actions to exert influence over other powers for non-military purposes. There is a risk that the military-defensive turn will become so prevalent that divert efforts from these other forms of influence.
It may be that ultra-realpolitik is what some people want from Europe, but in that case it fails to present its geostrategy convincingly as a defense of liberal order, peace and democracy.
These dilemmas are evident in European responses to events in Iran. European governments are right to defense of international law against military intervention.
The Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sanchezwas particularly notable in expounding this position. But they have failed to outline policies that lie in the vast terrain between illegal military strikes, on the one hand, and lenient inaction toward repressive regimes, on the other.
Repeating fidelity to international law and retreating into moral self-satisfaction does little to help citizens suffering under regimes like those in Iran and Venezuela. European liberal autonomy would certainly imply more proactive involvement in favor of democratic change, even if the bloc remains distant from US military intervention.
The complex and growing crises in Iran and other countries require the EU to demonstrate firmness against Trump, but also critical reflection on itself.
European governments need to define whether the EU’s autonomy should be measured in terms of a conceptually distinct “alternative power” or the more visceral power politics that other powers are pursuing. Without this, European independence It’s like a ship setting sail with no defined destination.
