Research Question(RQ): "Why can't Europe adopt a diplomatic approach similar to that of Qatar or Turkey or establish its own path as a reconciliator/mediator in international relations (IRs), international conflicts (ICs), and regional conflicts (RCs)?"
IRs: International Relations; ICs: International Conflicts; RCs: Regional Conflicts.
By Europe you presumably mean the EU. This is a good question, because in theory the EU is well placed to act as mediator. However, the EU, despite its aspiration to adopt a common stance in foreign policy, cannot speak with a common voice. Its members follow different foreign policies. Take the current Israeli-Palestinian war. When recently the head of the European Commission and the president of the European Parliament travelled to Israel to show their solidarity with it, there was a strong backlash within the EU because these officers had no warrant to speak on international issues on behalf of the EU. Any claim to impartiality the EU had was lost in that one visit. Furthermore, most European states are too beholden to the United States, which is not known for impartiality in conflicts.
Europe's role in international mediation is intricate and varied when compared to countries such as Qatar or Turkey. The differences in their roles can be attributed to factors such as existing mediation mechanisms, global power dynamics, political structure, and historical context. However, Europe is involved in international mediation efforts through various channels, including diplomatic initiatives by individual European nations, the European External Action Service (EEAS) of the EU, and contributions to international organizations like the United Nations.
Despite the fact that the European Union (EU) began as an economic regional organisation, it has developed the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the European External Action Service (EEAS) which is the EU's diplomatic service. It's primarily role though, is to ensure the EU's security through Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions outside its borders and not act as a reconciliator/mediator. Another reason is that the EU decision making process, wich in most cases require consensus of its 27 current members. This is very difficult to be achieved, because is most cases the national interests of each member-state (MS) are different. It must also be stressed that the CFSP provides a framework for the cooperation of the MS and is not a binding policy.
Hi!
While agreeing in overall terms with the answers, I would like to hihglight the decreasing EU´s role in international relations. Some thirty years ago the saying portrayed the EU as a "economic giant, political dwarf and military worm". Nowadays the economic weight is decreasing, the political stature has not become larger, and the military resources would merit the EU a smaller size than that of a worm.
One reason is BREXIT. Neither the British Armed Forces, nor UK economy, nor HM foreign service can no longer be counted as EU assets. BREXIT could have had a political positive impact on EU CFSP by reducing the variety of political views, but this has not been the case since the other two big players, Germany and France, are not at their height of bilateral relations, and the EU has invested a lot - may be too much - in its support to UKR, a policy that takes resources from other areas and has shifted the Russian Federation from a difficult partner to an outright non-belligerent enemy. This has been obviuos in Mali or Niger, where the EU has been driven out, along with the French, mainly because of the latters´ history, but not without the Russians gaining some advantage.
I mean that performing as a mediator you need to have some weight, and I see the EU´s one decreasing in economical and military areas, while the political one is still fragmented, although the diplomatic arm - the EEAS - is stronger than it was years ago.
The other resource you need to perform as a mediator is being acceptable to the parties, if not totally impartial with regard to the conflict. Is now the EU more acceptable to the parties than it was some twenty or thirty years ago? I do not think so. It is politically fragmented, more dependant on the US, particulary after the response to the Russian invasion of UKR.
All these highlights the parameters that characterized the EU when confronted with crisis outside its borders: heavy political and economic involvement when it is close and interest of member states are strong (see Kosovo, or even military involvement, see Bosnia) and blurred as the conflict is far away and the interest of member states are not clear, or conflicting with each other. So very little room to be an international actor that can influence behaviuors.
Multi-Column Comparison Table: EU Vs. Qatar & Turkey: Diplomatic Approaches in IRs and Conflict Resolution
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India