Before I get criticism about posting an article from South China Morning Post: The author of this article in question is Finbarr Bermingham, who is an Irish journalist based on Brussels that writes articles in SCMP mainly from the EU point of view. As such, I believe that his articles can be considered to be of good enough objectivity and credibility to be posted here.
This article summarizes what VdL said in a speech essentially saying that being the sole entity in the world guarding the old rules based order is now a hinderance and that the EU should adjust its foreign policy as such to meet the moment. That Europe needs to be more independent and be willing to project power with all tools available.
For more context to this article, VdL got immediate pushback from other high-ranking members of the EU. Some notable criticism comes from EU Council president Antonio Costa:
>Costa:”We must defend the rules-based international order. We must uphold the principles enshrined in the UN Charter”
On the other hand, the French seem to agree with VdL. Here is French foreign minister Jean-Noel Barrot:
>Barrot:”We are experiencing a growing rivalry between the United States and China. To avoid becoming mere spectators, our challenge is clear: to chart a third way, that of a strong and independent Europe”
Now, VdL, under pressure from other members, has retracted some of her statements:
>VdL:”We will always uphold these principles”
What’s especially notable is that despite Costa wanting to uphold the rules-based order, he actually directly criticized US-Israeli actions in Iran while VdL was unwilling to do so in both her speech and in her remarks today, which indicates that while she does advocate for a more realist foreign policy, it appears to be very selective in that they are unwilling to fully untangle themselves from the US.
>Costa: “We know the new reality … Russia violates peace, China disrupts trade, and the United States challenges the international rules-based order.”
Kallas shares the same hesitancy in criticism of the US, with only a slight allusion to international law being violated:
>Kallas: “Without restoring international law, together with accountability, we are doomed to see repeated violations of the law, disruption and chaos. We see this in the Middle East as we speak.”
IMO, it’s hard to tell where VdL is going with this. She appears to have a vision of realistic foreign policy that, while advocating for self-reliance, also does giveay to US foreign interests as well. Whereas despite Costa and others wanting to cling to the old order, they are willing to criticize US foreign interests and act more independently. Perhaps this indicates that the upholding of international law can actually be a pillar of EU power projection if the US is fully abandoning it? In this sense, Costa would actually align more closely with the French point of view than VdL does.
pinging u/ZweigDidion since you were especially interested.
sinuhe_t on
What rules-based order are we even talking about? Insofar as there ever was one (Carney rightly pointed out that it was always more uhh aspirational rather than reality), now it’s dead and buried.
Background-Bottle-23 on
Where is she going with this? Like what policy is proposed under the banner of ‘rules-based order is dead’ that couldn’t be implemented without declaring that? If the goal is more defence spending, stronger trade tools, or reducing dependence on rivals, those are policies the EU already has the authority to pursue.
Declaring the old system obsolete is kind of pointless. You get nothing of value from saying that if you have no potential policy avenues you are planning to go after saying that.
3 Comments
Before I get criticism about posting an article from South China Morning Post: The author of this article in question is Finbarr Bermingham, who is an Irish journalist based on Brussels that writes articles in SCMP mainly from the EU point of view. As such, I believe that his articles can be considered to be of good enough objectivity and credibility to be posted here.
This article summarizes what VdL said in a speech essentially saying that being the sole entity in the world guarding the old rules based order is now a hinderance and that the EU should adjust its foreign policy as such to meet the moment. That Europe needs to be more independent and be willing to project power with all tools available.
For more context to this article, VdL got immediate pushback from other high-ranking members of the EU. Some notable criticism comes from EU Council president Antonio Costa:
>Costa:”We must defend the rules-based international order. We must uphold the principles enshrined in the UN Charter”
On the other hand, the French seem to agree with VdL. Here is French foreign minister Jean-Noel Barrot:
>Barrot:”We are experiencing a growing rivalry between the United States and China. To avoid becoming mere spectators, our challenge is clear: to chart a third way, that of a strong and independent Europe”
Now, VdL, under pressure from other members, has retracted some of her statements:
>VdL:”We will always uphold these principles”
What’s especially notable is that despite Costa wanting to uphold the rules-based order, he actually directly criticized US-Israeli actions in Iran while VdL was unwilling to do so in both her speech and in her remarks today, which indicates that while she does advocate for a more realist foreign policy, it appears to be very selective in that they are unwilling to fully untangle themselves from the US.
>Costa: “We know the new reality … Russia violates peace, China disrupts trade, and the United States challenges the international rules-based order.”
Kallas shares the same hesitancy in criticism of the US, with only a slight allusion to international law being violated:
>Kallas: “Without restoring international law, together with accountability, we are doomed to see repeated violations of the law, disruption and chaos. We see this in the Middle East as we speak.”
IMO, it’s hard to tell where VdL is going with this. She appears to have a vision of realistic foreign policy that, while advocating for self-reliance, also does giveay to US foreign interests as well. Whereas despite Costa and others wanting to cling to the old order, they are willing to criticize US foreign interests and act more independently. Perhaps this indicates that the upholding of international law can actually be a pillar of EU power projection if the US is fully abandoning it? In this sense, Costa would actually align more closely with the French point of view than VdL does.
For more reading, I suggest looking at [Bermingham’s X account](https://xcancel.com/fbermingham).
pinging u/ZweigDidion since you were especially interested.
What rules-based order are we even talking about? Insofar as there ever was one (Carney rightly pointed out that it was always more uhh aspirational rather than reality), now it’s dead and buried.
Where is she going with this? Like what policy is proposed under the banner of ‘rules-based order is dead’ that couldn’t be implemented without declaring that? If the goal is more defence spending, stronger trade tools, or reducing dependence on rivals, those are policies the EU already has the authority to pursue.
Declaring the old system obsolete is kind of pointless. You get nothing of value from saying that if you have no potential policy avenues you are planning to go after saying that.