The predictions made last year with regard to the growing importance of great power rivalries still rings in our ears.
What is more, our strategic environment grows ever more unpredictable. Today, major powers openly challenge the rules-based international order and seek to promote alternative visions of a world divided into spheres of influence. Geopolitical rivalry stokes tensions and raise the alarm bell of a new “proliferation age” that risk escalating into inadvertent military confrontation. Climate change is becoming an existential threat, while cyberspace and disinformation campaigns are the new weapons of the 21st century.
For the European Union, the answer is clear: These challenges can only be tackled through a multilateral approach. Together we have the tools and the political weight to shape the future global order if we stay united. This is why instead of retreating from international cooperation and global partnerships, the EU is stepping up its commitment to address global challenges together with its partners: This is true for the Paris agreement on climate change, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on non-proliferation, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the EU’s strategy for connectivity between Asia and Europe or the reform of the WTO.
While these agreements are — in essence — hard to reach, we are convinced they are the best way to ensure a more peaceful, prosperous and secure world environment. Even more so when it is clear that no single country can address these challenges alone. I am convinced this approach is the right one and the fact that demand for European action from our partners has never been so high speaks for itself.
At every given opportunity, the need to define common answers to common problems is not only highlighted, but translated into action. The European Union is therefore investing in broader international cooperation and partnerships above all with NATO, the UN, and regional organizations such as the Africa Union and ASEAN. Our trilateral EU-AU-UN cooperation on common challenges such as migration illustrates how multilateral solutions can contribute to greater safety, stability and prosperity.
For instance, as the UN IPCC Special Report on Global Warming warned us recently, there is an urgent need to act on climate change. This is the logic for the EU’s tireless efforts to reach a successful outcome at COP24 in Katowice. The EU will lead by example by turning its own ambitious commitments for 2030 into concrete action. This was made clear at the high-level event on Climate and Security hosted by the EU last June.
In the security sector, the European Union continues to assert its role as a security provider. Not only it is working internally to intensify joint efforts to effectively fight terrorism, hatred and violent extremism, the Union is engaged on the ground with 16 crisis management missions i.e. nearly 4,000 men and women. From building capacities in Mali, Niger and Central African Republic, to supporting security sector reform in Iraq, fighting piracy off the coast of Somalia or preventing a resurgence of violence in Georgia, the Union continues to strengthen international security in its neighborhood and beyond. This is complemented by continued engagement in more than 40 mediation activities across the world, from Colombia to Yemen and the Philippines, and underpinned by financial assistance as the EU remains the lead donor for development and humanitarian aid.
As Europe is taking more responsibility for its own security, the debate on European strategic autonomy has moved to the fore and not without controversy. However, at its heart is a simple reasoning: When needed, Europeans need to be able to protect and defend European interests and values and have the capacity to act. We want to be able to cooperate with third countries on our own terms.
In this respect, we stepped up the development of joint military capabilities through our “Permanent Structured Cooperation: (PESCO), we will increase joint investments through the European Defence Fund, we are streamlining military command structures (MPCC), and we agreed a Compact to strengthen our civilian crisis management. As such these initiatives also contribute to strengthen NATO’s European pillar and contribution to collective defense.
Greater responsibility also includes beefing up our own resilience and capacity in energy, space, infrastructure and other critical sectors. We Europeans cannot accept interference and destabilization through hybrid and cyberattacks, hence our on-going focus on reinforcing cybersecurity capacities, improving the protection of data and containing disinformation through the recently adopted Action Plan on Disinformation.
We also need to be extra vigilant to preserve achievements on non-proliferation, such as the INF treaty or the nuclear deal with Iran, as the stakes for our own security are simply too high. The starting point cannot be to dismantle the current architecture and start from scratch. We Europeans are working at all levels to promote the universalization and implementation of existing agreements, such as the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty or the Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation. We are also pushing for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to come into force which could play an important role as we work towards a complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the DPRK.
Taking greater responsibility does not stop at defense issues. Security today is also about economic security. This notion includes the strategic importance of the euro and the need to ensure that the single currency can play its full role on the international scene. Promoting the euro’s international role is part of Europe’s commitment to an open, multilateral and rules-based global economy. The extra-territorial effects of sanctions also challenge the Union’s capacity to follow through on our own political commitments. In this context we are developing mechanisms that will assist, protect and reassure economic actors to pursue legitimate business abroad.
As Europeans we cannot afford to waste time or to be less innovative than others. We need to modernize our approaches and engage more actively with new actors at the intersection of technology and foreign and security policy. This is why the High Representative launched the Global Tech panel, with the CEO of major tech companies, in order to help ensure that international ethics and rules can keep pace with human ingenuity. To harness these opportunities, we also must take the security implications seriously, hence the recent European Commission Communication on Artificial Intelligence.
All in all, supporting rules-based multilateralism and greater European strategic autonomy are not contradictory objectives. If we strengthen our resilience in the face of new risks, the European Union will play its part in reinvigorating the multilateral order and be reckoned as an assertive actor in a volatile world.
Helga Maria Schmid is secretary-general of the EU’s External Action Service (EEAS). This article originally appeared in the newspaper The Security Times.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US