LSE -EUROPP Giada Lagana August 2nd, 2024 What the 2024 European Parliament election results mean for EU peacebuilding

 LSE -EUROPP 

Giada Lagana

August 2nd, 2024

What the 2024 European Parliament election results mean for EU peacebuilding

Peacebuilding is a founding principle of the European integration process. Yet as Giada Lagana writes, the outcome of the 2024 European Parliament elections means substantial effort is needed to ensure peacebuilding remains a policy priority for the EU over the next five years.

The world has become less peaceful over the past five years, with conflicts also becoming more internationalised due to changes in military technology and increasing geopolitical competition. As noted in the 2024 Global Peace Index, serious commitment to conflict prevention is urgently needed, as some of the conditions leading to major wars are higher now than they have been since 1945.

Even if Europe is the most peaceful region in the world, the European Parliament elections in June, which shifted the chamber solidly to the right, were badly timed for peacebuilding. However, while this topic has received only marginal attention, it is important to reflect on how the new European Parliament is likely to shape the future strategy of the EU in this field.

Policy influence

The outlook in the new European Parliament is not positive. The gains of the far right were less extensive than expected, but still significant. The centre-right/right European People’s Party (EPP) grouping also improved its position at the expense of the liberal/centrist Renew Europe and the Greens.

The European Parliament only plays a marginal role in the shaping of EU foreign policy. Nevertheless, it has two main avenues through which it can strategically influence the agenda. The first is through the election of the European Commission. The second is through the budget: next year the EU is set to begin negotiations on the new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2028-2034.

In relation to the first point, Ursula von der Leyen has already been re-elected by a sizeable margin for another five-year term as President of the European Commission. Ahead of her confirmation, she laid-out proposals such as boosting the EU’s defence ambitions and protecting Europe’s democracy. Upon election, she has been urged to focus on civil society peacebuilding as an integral part of any viable process to end the Israel-Palestine conflict.

As it stands, the European Parliament may be able to exert influence and extract political concessions from the new Commission. The far right lacks cohesion and its diversity is especially evident on issues of foreign policy, because traditionally these parties overwhelmingly focus on domestic grievances.

As part of this inward-looking approach, most far-right parties view foreign policy – particularly aid and development assistance – through a highly transactional lens. Partnerships are not worth pursuing in the interest of the general stability and development of the world. They are useful only if they can be leveraged in the immediate, short-term interest.

Furthermore, a decade ago, the political space was dominated by “populist right” parties, whose positions were more subject to moderation. In 2024, the shift has been towards more “radical right” parties, who are firmer in their beliefs. Even the more-moderate EPP, von der Leyen’s own group, has swung notably to the right on immigration, agriculture and clean energy.

This combination – the far right directly gaining concessions while also exerting soft influence on centre-right/right parties – means that the new Commission may reflect their priorities. As a result, the EU’s agenda might be more inward-looking and transactional, with a focus on what it can immediately get out of partnerships with other countries rather than on collective, long-term benefits. If so, peacebuilding will suffer.

What is to be done?

At the political level, the task is relatively straightforward: push hard for peacebuilding to be well-funded in the budget and a policy priority in the Commission and the European External Action Service. Leadership will be essential in this endeavour.

The fact that mainstream adoption of far-right policy positions has served mostly to further normalise them is proof that politicians have as much power to shape public opinion as they need to chase it. European voters can be convinced of the benefits and virtues of a foreign policy that is mutually beneficial rather than zero-sum. By presenting the European people with a cohesive vision for how things can be better, the public could be positively motivated not by fear, but by hope.

When making this case, it is vital to remember that peacebuilding is in the EU’s own interest, as it is in the EU’s DNA. Less conflict prevention means more wars and instability around the world. In turn, crises will negatively impact on global trade and will increase the number of individuals fleeing their homes and seeking asylum elsewhere. These considerations should not be the main reason the EU supports peacebuilding, but they are worth noting. Turning inward out of short-term self-interest will, in the long term, hurt the EU.

Lastly, the EU should put in place a well-organised institutional learning structure, allowing it to be more efficient in this field by learning from successes and correcting mistakes. Let’s not forget that some of the EU’s own member states have been the theatre for its enduring commitment to peacebuilding. The European Parliament and the Commission came together to devote resources and administrative capacity to help resolve the Northern Ireland conflict.

However, a traditional focus on the external dimension has meant the case of Northern Ireland has had little influence on the EU’s broader peacebuilding strategy. Northern Ireland’s relationship with the EU has only come under the spotlight as a consequence of Brexit.

Peacebuilding requires rejecting the easy option in the short term and doing what is necessary and universally beneficial in the long term. If EU leaders, MEPs and bureaucrats are either not courageous enough or unable to make a political case for that kind of trade-off, how will responses ever be provided to the existential threats the EU faces?

Note: This article gives the views of the author, not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy or the London School of Economics. Featured image credit: European Union

About the author

Giada Lagana

Giada Lagana is a Leverhulme ECR Fellow and a Lecturer in Politics at Cardiff University. She is author of The European Union and the Northern Ireland Peace Process and President of the Irish Association for Contemporary European Studies (IACES). Her current research focuses on the role of bureaucrats in peacebuilding.

Posted In: EU Foreign Affairs | Politics