Reimagining Europe’s Global Role: A Conversation with Nathalie Tocci

In an informative exchange with Diplomatist, Professor Nathalie Tocci, Director of the Istituto Affari Internazionali and Professor of Practice at Johns Hopkins University SAIS Europe, reflects on Europe’s evolving strategic identity in a world marked by shifting power equations and the growing resonance of the Global South. From the EU’s pursuit of strategic autonomy and climate diplomacy to the urgent need for reforming multilateral institutions, Tocci offers a sharp, forward-looking perspective on how Europe must redefine its global role—balancing principles with pragmatism. She also shares her insights on the emerging contours of India–EU cooperation, the rise of multipolarity, and the role of think-tanks in navigating disruption and disinformation.

 

 

1. You have often written about Europe’s strategic identity in transition. As geopolitical pressures mount from Asia, Africa, and climate frontiers, what do you see as the new role Europe should play — not just as a balancing power, but as a reimaged global interlocutor?

In a world that has shifted away from US hegemony and unipolarity, Europe, and in particular the European Union, should ideally stand as a player in its own right. This would require it to foster internal unity in ways that reflect its constituting principles and interests, and pursue three sets of goals. First, Europe would need to work on its strategic autonomy, especially as regards its relationship with the US. This does not mean distancing itself from Washington but acquiring the capacity and mustering the political will to use this in ways that reflect European interests rather than being subordinate to the US. In short, working towards a more balanced partnership across the Atlantic. Second, and related, Europe must become better able to defend itself against Russia, which existentially threatens several European countries. It should do so without counting on the US. Third, Europe should learn to engage more actively with several other global partners, starting with China and India, as well as players from the Global South.

1. In your view, which multilateral institution (EU, UN, WTO, etc.) is most overdue for structural reform, and how might such reform reflect the voices of the Global South?

All require a radical revamp. Either because they were built in and for peacetime, as is the case of the EU, or because they must adapt to a post-US-led world order, as is the case of NATO or the WTO. The organization that requires a revamp the most is the UN, and in particular the UN Security Council. This is for two sets of reasons. On the one hand, the UNSC, as well known, is irredeemably blocked due to cross-vetoes over the major international conflicts of our time, from Ukraine to Gaza. On the other hand, it fails to represent the Global South altogether, be it India, or countries in Africa and Latin America. Beyond the objective difficulty of finding consensual solutions to both these problems, the added complexity lies in the fact that an expanded and more representative UNSC, unless reformed in its functioning – and in particular the veto wielding power of permanent members – could end up being even more dysfunctional.

1. With Europe pushing a Green Deal and nations in the Global South facing existential climate stress, how do you see the emerging fault lines between “climate justice” and “climate security” shaping 21st-century diplomacy?

The climate crisis has become yet another fault line in the cleavage and tensions between the Global North and South, starting with historical causes such as colonialism to more recent tensions over development, debt, health and, most recently, the Gaza war. The solution in principle should not be impossible to find, and revolves around climate finance, including climate  mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage. The problem though is that countries in the Global North, including Europe, are now gripped by a political “greenlash”, with nationalist populist forces on the rise, making them row back on their own climate commitments both domestically and internationally.

1. You are known for synthesising normative and realist strands in foreign policy. In an era of strategic competition, how does one maintain Europe’s commitment to values like human rights and democracy without slipping into moral posturing

The key, I believe, is to live by those principles internally, and alas this is not done, and adhere to international law in foreign policy, and unfortunately that is not the case either. I don’t think that Europe can, or perhaps even should, wag its finger at other countries when it comes to their internal government system. What it can and should do is ensure it lives up to its own norms and standards of liberal democracy. In foreign policy, the North Star should be international law, and in particular the UN Charter. Insisting and even conditioning European foreign policy to those principles, so long as it is done consistently, would not be moral posturing, but mere coherence.

1. As India deepens its linkages with Europe (trade, climate, tech, education), where do you see the most promising areas of strategic convergence — and what are the key obstacles that still need bridging?

In terms of policy content, the convergences or reciprocal gains are evident in all the areas identified above. The main difficulty is less policy related and more political in nature. Europe and India are fundamentally different in nature, with India being a State on the rise and determined to move fast; and the EU a sui generis actor in the international system, constituted by States that are bound together not least by their awareness of their relatively declining relative weight in the international system, characterised by bureaucratic complexity and slowness. The EU, by definition is a system based on rules and multilateralism, while India is far more inclined to act transactionally, unbound by alliances, norms and rules which are set, in its view, by others.

1. We often talk of Global North vs Global South. Do you foresee a third narrative emerging — perhaps one that reframes the relationship as partners in planetary governance? What would that look like in practice?

The international system is trending towards two radically different paradigms. One sees a multipolar system in which States, while acting more autonomously and nimbly than in the past are nonetheless bound by a thin set of international and multilateral norms enshrined in the UN Charter. A second paradigm sees a world of empires, revolving around the US, China and possibly Russia, a world of the survival of the fittest. How Europe and India act and interact with each other will be key in shaping towards which system we edge towards. Only if Europe stands united and learns to engage as equal to countries in the Global South, and if India appreciates that it stands to lose from a world of predator empires, do we stand a chance to realise a rules based multilateral multipolarity.

1. What institutional strategies do you believe effective think-tanks must adopt to stay relevant and credible amid disruption, disinformation, and polarisation?

By creating a space for dialogue, openness and respectful  articulation of different views, provided they are evidence based and analytical. They must continue interacting “upwards” with elites in politics, institutions and business, but also, crucially, downwards and sideways with civil society, the media and youth. Their role is that of creating a safe space for dialogue, to inform policy but also to serve public debate and pedagogical functions towards ordinary citizens, increasingly aware of the impact that international relations have on their lives.