From Economic Giant to Geopolitical Powerhouse. A roadmap towards enhancing the EU’s global clout

On 3 March, a report entitled From Economic Giant to Geopolitical Powerhouse? A roadmap towards enhancing the EU’s global clout was posted on the website of the ‘Clingendael’ Netherlands Institute of International Relations.

The report considers the transformation of the European Union from an economic giant into a geopolitical power and what can be done in the short term at the EU decision-making level to enhance its geopolitical influence.

The EU is often referred to as an ‘economic giant, political dwarf and military worm’. In a world order now determined by power instead of rules, the EU will have to move along and become more geopolitical.

Decision-making on geopolitical and security matters in the EU is currently scattered among various institutions. The common foreign and security policy is governed on an intergovernmental basis, with the member States taking decisions unanimously.

In the recent years, the EU has proven capable of taking drastic steps that were previously impossible, such as establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility as part of the EU’s post-COVID economic response, which also refers to the 19 packages of sanctions against Russia and the decision to indefinitely freeze Russian assets. Yet such unprecedented steps were often achieved by circumventing unanimity, for example by using emergency legislation or by moving around unwilling Member States.

The biggest obstacle to the EU’s geopolitical clout is currently the unanimity requirement on common foreign and security policy matters. Abandoning it could substantially benefit EU influence. However, that would require treaty reform, which is unlikely in the short term.

To enhance the EU’s effectiveness on the global stage, it is suggested that a qualified majority vote should be used. However, a decision on qualified majority requires prior consensus in the EU Council. This is an unlikely route towards qualified majority vote on issues which lack structural consensus.

A constructive abstention procedure ought to be used, with countries required to clearly explain the reasons for their veto.

Some member States could be allowed to opt out of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. That could prevent the use of the veto power.

The EU’s limited geopolitical clout stems largely from its complex multi-layered division of competences. The current geopolitical context requires strong EU leadership. The European Commission is best equipped to promote the EU’s common interests. So it is logical to assign a steering role primarily to the Commission and particularly to its President.

Giving the European Parliament a larger role in EU foreign and security policy through consultation and budgetary oversight would add a new player to an already overcrowded institutional landscape but would improve the quality of decisions.