In a candid address delivered at the Shangri-La Dialog in Singapore on May 30, 2025, French President Emmanuel Macron cautioned that the West’s credibility is at risk due to the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza. He asserted that the failure to resolve these conflicts with integrity and consistency would undermine the rules-based international order and Europe’s standing within it. Macron’s concerns extend beyond geopolitical instability, touching upon the symbolic and normative role Europe aspires to play on the global stage.

For years, the European Union has portrayed itself as a champion of values, employing diplomacy, aid, legal harmonization, and multilateralism to exert influence. This concept, popularized by Ian Manners as the EU’s “normative power,” suggests that Europe aims to shape global affairs by promoting human rights, democracy, and international law. However, the concurrent wars in Ukraine and Gaza present a challenge to this image, exposing the EU to accusations of hypocrisy and selective morality.

The Dichotomy of Responses: Ukraine vs. Gaza

“Credibility cannot be commanded-it must be earned. And in an era of increasing global scrutiny, that will require more than rhetoric. It will require resolve.”

The stark contrast between Europe’s response to the conflicts in Ukraine and gaza highlights this issue. In ukraine, the EU has demonstrated unprecedented unity, providing military aid, imposing sanctions, diplomatically isolating Russia, and welcoming Ukrainian refugees. conversely, the response to Gaza has been fragmented and inconsistent.While some member states, such as Ireland and spain, have advocated for the recognition of Palestinian statehood and condemned Israeli actions, others have hesitated or reinforced their support for Israel, citing counterterrorism and alliance politics. This disparity has not gone unnoticed, especially in the Global South, where Europe’s normative claims are increasingly viewed with skepticism.

Macron’s emphasis on credibility underscores a growing awareness that Europe’s legitimacy is no longer assured. The crisis he identifies extends beyond diplomacy to the very identity of the EU. The question arises: if the EU champions territorial integrity in Ukraine, how can it remain passive when similar principles are violated elsewhere? If human rights are deemed universal, can the Union afford to be silent or ambiguous regarding civilian casualties in Gaza? These questions are being raised not only by foreign policy analysts but also in international forums, Asian capitals, and public protests across Europe. The more the EU’s actions diverge from its stated principles, the more its “normative brand” deteriorates.

Strategic Autonomy and Internal Challenges

Macron’s advocacy for “strategic autonomy” and his concern about Europe being caught between the US and China suggest a deeper strategic dilemma. The EU faces a critical choice: reinforce the transatlantic alliance or pursue a more independent path, mediating between blocs in a multipolar world. Macron’s consistent support for strategic autonomy reflects a belief that the EU cannot indefinitely rely on Washington for its geopolitical relevance, especially with the potential return of Donald Trump to the White House.

This dilemma is compounded by internal weaknesses within the EU. The Union’s foreign policy is hampered by institutional fragmentation, conflicting national interests, and a consensus-based decision-making process that often results in diluted positions. While the EU initially displayed remarkable unity on Ukraine, the Gaza crisis has exposed the limits of this unity when values clash with political alliances or domestic considerations.This is not merely a crisis of perception but of capacity. The question remains: can the EU truly act as a geopolitical player when its member states cannot agree on basic issues such as the legitimacy of force, occupation, or humanitarian necessity?

The illusion of normative power is not just an external branding issue but an internal governance challenge. To maintain credibility abroad, Europe must address its internal contradictions, re-evaluating the balance between values and interests, ideals and strategic imperatives.This may necessitate institutional reforms, such as deeper integration in foreign and security policy, a stronger role for the High Representative, or a shift toward qualified majority voting in foreign affairs.

Furthermore, Europe must acknowledge the evolving global landscape. In a world where Western hegemony is waning, the EU’s normative influence hinges on its ability to engage with actors in Asia, Africa, and Latin America as equals. Macron’s call for a “positive new alliance” between Europe and asia, aimed at resisting domination by any single superpower, offers a potential way forward. However, such an alliance will only be credible if Europe consistently applies its principles, even when it is inconvenient, especially when those principles are tested by allies.

Ultimately, Macron’s speech serves as a reflection of the European project itself, highlighting its aspirations, anxieties, potential, and paradoxes. Whether Europe can navigate this crisis and develop a foreign policy that is both principled and strategic remains to be seen. However, it is clear that credibility must be earned through consistent action, not just rhetoric.