In examining the mistakes made by the EU in its foreign policy over the past years, several key themes emerge. These include a lack of preparedness and unity in response to crises, a lack of credibility and influence in key regions such as Ukraine, and a need to adapt to a changing security environment that includes non-traditional threats such as terrorism and cyberattacks. This is why we are focusing, today, mainly on the EU’s approach to conflict, refugees, and crises, which have been changing the way Europeans (and the world) see the Union and its effectiveness.

Diplomacy: A common goal! But is it enough?

The EU’s joint foreign and security policy, designed to resolve conflicts and foster international understanding, is based on diplomacy and respect for international rules. Trade, humanitarian aid, and development cooperation also play an important role in the EU’s international role. EU foreign and security policy seeks to preserve peace, strengthen international security, promote international cooperation, develop and consolidate democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights & fundamental freedoms.

But all of this seems to be more of a declaration of intent, rather than an actual plan. Given the fact that the Union is made up of 27 member states, each with its foreign policy priorities and objectives – this creates a fragmentation that makes it difficult for the EU to speak with one voice on the international stage.  And it makes it impossible in most scenarios, to take valuable action. The Clingendael Institute describes the EU’s current foreign policy as follows “By way of a visual analogy, current EU foreign policy resembles a communal residence held in joint ownership by 27 inhabitants, the top floor of which is under construction while the roof leaks.”

From diplomatic mishaps to national leaders undermining the bloc’s position, the EU’s foreign relations have been rocky for some time.

Mistakes were made again and again

One of the biggest mistakes made by the European Union in the past five years was its handling of the refugee crisis. The crisis began in 2015, when hundreds of thousands of refugees began arriving in Europe, fleeing conflict and persecution in their home countries in the Middle East and North Africa, the great majority being Syrians and Iraqis. It was the worst refugee crisis since the end of World War II.

The EU’s response to the crisis was slow and ineffective, and, mostly characterized by a lack of solidarity among member states, leading to a rise in anti-immigrant sentiment in many member states. Some countries, such as Germany and Sweden, took in large numbers of refugees, while others, such as Hungary and Poland, refused to take in any refugees at all.

But perhaps the biggest lesson that the refugee crises thought us was that the EU is no longer a “global village”, or if it is, it’s a shrinking one! Having tested the core values that Europe has for centuries been proud of — freedom and tolerance – the crisis was a moment to reexamine the EU Spirit. Not having the resources or infrastructure in place to deal with the influx of refugees, lead to overcrowding in refugee camps and a lack of basic services such as healthcare and education.

This, of course, undermined the EU’s ability to respond effectively to the crisis. And it the midst of it all, the Union forgot that the only lasting solution to the refugee issue, is creating a joint front and calling for political solutions that would allow the Middle East to move toward stability. Instead, the EU’s approach was – and still is – geared towards keeping the refugees OUT of Europe! In 2016 the European Union reached an agreement with Turkey in which it essentially paid Ankara to block refugee flows to Europe. In addition, member states struck deals with other countries that increased refugee detentions and deaths at sea – such as Italy’s 2017 agreement with the Libyan authorities (which renewed in 2020). It is clear that these measures violate key principles of international human rights law and that they go against the EU’s declared solidarity, which remains to this day, just theoretical.

In 2019 the EU declared the end of the Mediterranean migration crisis. But the cost of lowering the numbers of displaced people who reach European shores has been an increase in the suffering they experience and the risks they face. This is a  “Catch22” type of situation: if the EU focuses solely on migration control, while sacrificing humanitarian needs, refugees will, in turn, experience even greater instability in their countries, which is what prompts them to leave in search of a better life. And it’s exactly what is happening! In 2020, the EU announced a €40 million increase in funding to refugees in the Middle East, due to the fact that local crises are amplifying. Yet the bloc and its member states remain unwilling to shift their overall approach to tackling the long-term effects of forced migration and, accordingly, the incentives for refugees to try to reach Europe.

And since we’re talking abour refugees, it’s impossible not to mention The EU’s handling of the situation in Syria. The conflict in Syria began in 2011 when protests against the government of President Bashar al-Assad erupted into a full-scale civil war. The EU’s response to the crisis was seen as ineffective, with many member states unwilling to take decisive action.  The lack of unity among member states was made obvious France and the UK, wanted to take military action against the Assad regime, while others, such as Germany, were opposed to such action.

The Double Standard

It’s the same lack of consensus that we got to see again, when the Russia-Ukraine conflict errupted in 2014. The EU imposed sanctions on Russia in response to its actions in Ukraine, but these sanctions were seen as insufficient by many observers. Some member states, such as Italy and Greece, were reluctant to impose tough sanctions on Russia, while others, such as Poland and the Baltic states, wanted even stronger measures.

However, this time, when it came to taking in Ukrainian refugees, the EU was more than open! Around 4.3 million people have fled Ukraine since 24 February 2022, when Russia launched its all-out invasion of the country. Most of them have crossed into countries that neighbor Ukraine – mainly Poland, but also Romania, Slovakia, and Hungary – and many are now moving further west.

It seems that Russia’s war on Ukraine has led to an unmatched show of solidarity with Ukraine from European governments and citizens. Even member states such as Poland and Hungary – which had long opposed relocation quotas and other solidarity mechanisms – have accepted the Temporary Protection Directive. Russia’s aggression may have finally created the political momentum to reform EU policy on migration, asylum, and refugees.

Considering how the EU had previously handled refugees from Africa and the Middle east, could we be looking at an evidence of double standard? Years of populist and Eurosceptic rhetoric across Europe, have lead many EU citizens to see Middle Eastern and African migrants as a threat – in stark contrast to their views of Ukrainians, who they are widely depicted as having a moral duty to assist.

The differences in the EU’s approach to refugees from the Middle East and Ukraine also have broader implications for the EU’s role in the world and its ability to project its values and influence beyond its borders. The EU’s approach to refugees is closely linked to its broader foreign policy goals, including its commitment to human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.

The EU’s ability to address these issues and to promote stability and prosperity in its neighborhood will be critical to its ability to manage future refugee flows and to maintain its influence in the world. There’s no doubt that the Russia-Ukraine conflict has reignited the EU debate on asylum and migration. But, it has also brought to light even more cracks in EU ideology and operations. At the end of the day, the EU, like all institutions, is defined by its actions, which is why European foreign policy cannot continue to be a mere declaration of intent. Reaching consensus on asylum and human rights is the first step, but there is no guarantee that the EU’s outpouring of support for Ukrainians will translate into effective reforms of asylum policy.

This will require a wider reflection on the meaning of solidarity in a Union that views the concept as one of its founding principles – which means NOW is the perfect moment the EU becomes more mature and sovereign. Through cooperation and engagement with other countries and regions, the EU can continue to play a significant role in shaping the future of global affairs. All we can do is hope that works to achieving a common goal don’t backfire on the Union and make it develop into an independent global actor.

By Ioana Constantin