This article is an opinion piece whose contents represent the standpoint of its author and not UPF Lund or The Perspective’s editorial board.
Can liberal norms and values prevail even when no longer backed by military muscle? Since US President Trump’s inauguration in January, the EU has had to adapt to the new administration’s unwillingness to provide support for Ukraine, threats of various annexations, and— most recently— threats of a trade war due to high tariffs being placed on the union. The Trump administration’s actions have been described as a shift from the liberal internationalist perspective that has guided US foreign policy for decades into a realist strategy where the only thing that matters is crass self-interest, and “noble ideals are only as durable as the army enforcing them”. Furthermore, the transatlantic alliance between Europe and the US— which has previously largely been based on liberal ideals— has been virtually torn apart, as the lack of support for Ukraine and hostile statements toward European governments and the EU itself have been interpreted as a declaration of an “ideological war against Europe”.
In response to this, Ursula von der Leyen is introducing initiatives such as ReArm Europe, promising to boost defence budgets and make significant investments in Europe’s military and industrial strength. This rapid increase in defence spending is a major shift in the union’s foreign policy, having historically been aligned with liberal ideas of international negotiation and the dissemination of democracy and peace. The argument, however, is that this militaristic shift lines up with liberal values in the sense that it is needed to protect them; without the support of military powers such as the US, the EU needs to develop the military strength to support its values alone.
But the shift might be more major than it seems, if one takes into account the historical identity of the EU. The EU has both portrayed itself, and has been portrayed as, a peace project based on liberal internationalism and the unity of European states to prevent war in the region. The union was even awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012 “for over six decades contributed to the advancements of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe”. Along with this, scholars have highlighted the Union’s uniqueness by referring to it as a “normative power”. The concept of the EU as a normative power was introduced by Ian Manners in 2002. It aimed to define the union’s power as something different from both civilian power— which emphasizes economic capacity— and military power, which is upheld by force. Instead, a normative power’s influence comes from its ability to determine what is normal in international relations.
Beyond scholarly attention, the EU has built upon this narrative, emphasising its role as a global force for good that operates mainly through soft power and the attraction rather than coercion of allies. On the EU’s own webpage, it is abundantly clear that this is the outward identity that the union wants to display. The aims of the union are clearly defined as upholding values of freedom, democracy, sustainability and solidarity both within and outside of its borders. Historically, the union describes itself as being founded on ideals of “a peaceful, united and prosperous Europe”. In many ways, this has been the main argument behind the EU, and the union has justified many of its policies —and perhaps even its very existence— through this narrative.
It is also through this claim that the union has sought to differentiate itself from the US, especially under the presidency of Donald Trump. One example of this differentiation is when Trump, during his previous term as President, decided to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel alone, ignoring efforts for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. In response to this, the EU High Representative at the time— Federica Mogherini— underlined the importance of the EU, stating that “the region and the world count on Europe” to stand by values of multilateralism and negotiate conflict resolution. Her speech clearly set the EU apart from the US, framing the EU as an important force for peace, rather than conflict.
The question is whether the EU can continue to embody this narrative in the current geopolitical landscape. Initiatives to rearm Europe are understandable, as both Russia and the US are now threats to the union, wanting to break it apart to eliminate any of its power. But what will happen to the EU’s normative power identity as it adapts itself to this global political environment, with attacks coming from multiple directions? Is it possible for the EU to hold onto its core while also defending itself with hard power, or is the union simply conforming to Trump’s strategy of being the biggest bully on the block?
Considering these pivotal questions, it is important to recognize that there is an important difference between what the EU is trying to achieve and the realist strategy of authoritarian leaders around the world. Trump’s “America first” strategy is devoid of political ideas beyond pursuing crude self-interest. In a strained geopolitical situation, the EU still holds onto its ideals and, although it has to adapt to the existing circumstances, draws its strategy from normative goals. The relationship between liberal ideals and military muscle might be better understood if not seen as entirely dichotomous, in the sense that norms cannot be created at all without any form of concrete power. Trump has succeeded in creating a shift in norms across the international arena, and it is now up to the EU, among others, to offer an alternative to his “neanderthal realism”.
By Emmy Osterman Hallare
April 25, 2025
