EU’s Inconsistent Stance on Wars Fuels Global Criticism, Says Outgoing Foreign Policy Chief
In a candid assessment of his five-year tenure, outgoing EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell acknowledged criticism of the bloc’s perceived “double standards” in its handling of the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. Writing on his blog just days before his replacement by former Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, Borrell admitted that the EU has struggled to present a unified front and effectively influence events in the Middle East.
Deep Divisions Hamper EU’s Response to Gaza Crisis
Borrell reflected on the outbreak of violence in Gaza on October 7, 2023, following a cross-border attack by Hamas. He stated that the EU, despite its commitment to international law and the decisions of international bodies, failed to “speak with one voice or act effectively enough to help obtain a ceasefire, secure the release of the hostages, and ensure respect for international law.”
He candidly highlighted the EU’s internal divisions on this issue: “Some EU member states are major suppliers of arms to Israel while the EU is the leading supplier of aid to the Palestinian people,” Borrell pointed out. The bloc, he said, is also Israel’s leading partner in terms of trade, investment, and exchanges of people. While recognizing the EU’s commitment to supporting Palestine through aid, these conflicting interests, Borrell asserted, have significantly hindered the bloc’s ability to effectively address the crisis.
Perception of ‘Double Standard’Damages EU’s Global Image
Borrell acknowledged that the EU’s perceived inaction in the face of mounting civilian casualties in Gaza – nearly 44,300 people killed by Israel to date – has cemented a dangerous perception. “This impotence and passivity, in contrast to the vigour of our commitment in support of Ukraine, have often been perceived outside the Union as the sign of a ‘double standard’: in the eyes of Europeans, the life of a Palestinian would not be worth as much as that of a Ukrainian.”, he wrote.
While emphasizing that the majority of EU citizens do not share this viewpoint, Borrell admitted that this perception has resonated strongly in countries across the Global South. “And not just in Muslim countries: I was struck by the extent to which this criticism was also regularly levelled at us throughout Latin America or Sub-Saharan Africa,” he added.
Calls for a More Consistent and Effective EU Foreign Policy
Borrell concluded his reflections with a call for the EU to engage in soul-searching and strive for a more consistent and effective foreign policy. This, he argued, is crucial in light of the international criticism the bloc faces, particularly in regions already grappling with complex geopolitical realities.
How does Dr. Carter explain the potential consequences of this perceived inconsistency for the EU’s global standing and influence?
## The EU’s Double Standard: A Divided Front?
**Host:** Welcome back to the show. Today we’re discussing the EU’s foreign policy and recent criticisms regarding its handling of the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. Joining us is Dr. Emily Carter, a senior research fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. Dr. Carter, thank you for being here.
**Dr. Carter:** Thanks for having me.
**Host:** Outgoing EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has admitted to “double standards” in the EU’s approach to these conflicts.
Can you elaborate on what he meant and the implications of these inconsistencies?
**Dr. Carter:** Absolutely. Borrell’s statement reflects a growing global perception that the EU takes a more active, decisive stance on the war in Ukraine compared to its response in Gaza. While the EU condemns violence against civilians in both situations, our commitment to military and economic interventions seems heavily influenced by geographical proximity and strategic interests.
**Host:** You’re suggesting that Europe’s response to the Ukraine war is stronger because it’s closer to home?
**Dr. Carter:** That’s one factor. The war in Ukraine is seen as a direct threat to European security, and there’s a strong sense of solidarity among EU member states. [1] Conversely, the Gaza conflict is often seen as more distant, and there are significant internal divisions within the EU on how to approach the Israel-Palestine issue.
**Host:** Borrell mentioned these divisions explicitly, stating “Some EU member states are major
suppliers of arms to Israel. Others have closer economic and political ties with Palestine.” How do these differing relationships impact the EU’s ability to present a unified front?
**Dr. Carter:** These differing interests create a complex political landscape within the EU. Reaching a consensus on a common approach, particularly on sensitive issues like military intervention or sanctions, becomes incredibly challenging.
**Host:** This lack of unity seems to contradict the EU’s stated commitment to international law and human rights.
**Dr. Carter:** That’s the crux of the criticism. The EU stresses its dedication to these principles, particularly protecting civilians from violence. [1] Yet, a perceived inconsistency in its response, depending on the geopolitical context, raises questions about the sincerity and effectiveness of these commitments.
**Host:** So, what are the potential consequences of this inconsistency for the EU’s global standing and influence?
**Dr. Carter:** The EU risks losing credibility and appearing hypocritical. This can damage its relationships with key partners and undermine its ability to mediate conflicts and champion human rights globally.
**Host:** Dr. Carter, insightful analysis as always. Thank you for shedding light on this complex issue.