Under new President António Costa, the European Council session upheld the EU’s stale international policy, showing no readiness for change.
Source: Antonio Costa/X
by Ana Vračar
On December 19, heads of government from EU member states convened for a European Council session chaired by its new President, António Costa. The agenda included the European Union’s position on the war in Ukraine, migration policies, and the EU’s international standing. Despite Costa’s recent appointment, the meeting’s agenda and outcomes offered little in terms of change or progress.
Among the most notable—but entirely expected—outcomes of the meeting was the reaffirmed support for Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s government in Ukraine. European leaders committed to continue military aid to the Zelenskyy administration, even as hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians continue to suffer the consequences of the war. At the same time, the Council doubled down on its approach of isolating Russia, announcing a new wave of sanctions—not only against Moscow but also against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Iran for their alleged support of Russian operations. As has become standard practice, the Council’s decisions on Ukraine left little room for meaningful peace negotiations with Russia.
Silence on Gaza, noise on Syria
While vocal about Ukraine, the European Council produced little of substance regarding the ongoing Israeli genocide in the Gaza Strip. Their silence, combined with Europe’s continued trade and military exchanges with Israel, served as tacit support for the occupation forces. In contrast, European leaders were far less restrained in addressing the situation in Syria. Following the fall of “Assad’s criminal regime,” as they described it, the Council expressed eagerness for rebuilding the country—presumably in ways that align with Western priorities.
Arguably the highlight of the Council’s meeting was its discussion on international cooperation and the EU’s relevance on the global stage—two areas where its influence continues to wane. The meeting’s outcomes could be summarized as a “naughty or nice” list, with favorable mentions for allies like Moldova, who aligned with EU narratives, and condemnations for countries like Georgia, criticized for alleged democratic backsliding.
Venezuela also received a special mention, with representatives using the opportunity to attack Nicolás Maduro’s government and promising support for a “peaceful and inclusive transition.”
In his concluding remarks, Costa expressed optimism about improving Europe’s standing in international cooperation, emphasizing the opportunities presented by multipolarity. Yet his vision for this concept seemed quite different from what it means for countries outside the Global North, essentially framing multipolarity as a tool for Europe’s benefit. “To do so [build partnerships] we must give up oversimplified concepts, like ‘Global South.’ And acknowledge that both the South and the North are, in fact, plural,” Costa said.
With this remark, Costa signaled that little will change in EU policies in the near future, as it continues to pursue the interests of its corporate classes over anything else. Despite extremely small prospects for restoring the region’s waning influence, the approach outlined at the European Council meeting reflects the EU’s traditionally inflated ambitions. This trajectory is likely to result in increased military spending and the pursuit of international alliances that conflict with the best interests of the people of Europe.
Comments