Is the EU in Crisis (as a Normative Global Actor)?

The issue that I would like to focus on is the ‘normative power Europe’ on a global stage. The European Union believes that it is not a classical foreign policy actor on a global stage, but rather a normative actor. Essentially, this means that the European Union abides by and promotes its common values and norms. Manners (2002) explains that these norms include ‘peace, liberty, the rule of law, democracy, human rights, social solidarity, anti-discrimination, sustainable development, and good governance’. Through EU member states (ideally) conforming to these values, the EU projects these norms to the world purely by being a rich, influential polity. Furthermore, the EU also promotes these values in other countries and act as a force for good by using ‘soft power’; positive incentives and negative consequences for conforming to or ignoring EU norms. The advantage of this is that through exporting laws, values and norms beyond the borders of Europe, the EU shapes what is normal in international relations (Sicurelli, 2016). Thus, the EU as a global normative actor is looking to promote its values and create congenial allies. Sicurelli (2016) uses the example of the European Parliament ensuring that any EU free trade deal with India is dependent on improving human rights issues in the country. Lee (2012) notes that whilst other global actors pursued strategic issues such as concerns over the North Korea nuclear weapons programme; the EU voiced their concerns over human rights abuses in the country. These actions add an ethical dimension to the EU as a global power which other global actors do not possess or at least do not have at the forefront of their foreign policy agenda.
On the contrary, Kagan (2002) and Goldsmith and Posner (2009) raised their skepticism over the sincerity of the EU’s normative policy commitments, questioning whether they are in fact disguised material interests. More economically strategic states such as Russia and China are subject to less human rights criticisms from the EU due to their higher commercial potential (Pollack, 2016). This exemplifies the divergence between the economic interests of member states and the norms of the EU when operating on a global stage. The member states have acted in their own material interests which has delegitimised the EU as a global norms-promoter, however due to the power and history of some large member states I think this is almost impossible to prevent. Furthermore, many member states are arguably trying to move away from liberal democracies (see Hungary, Poland). This further undermines the EU on a global stage, as some of its own member states do not respect or promote the values that are supposedly meant to be the foundations of the EU. This reduces the power and influence the EU has in terms of promoting and exporting its norms as it starts to look weak when its own values are still contested amongst member states.
In conclusion, the EU as a global actor has overall caused positive change in the world. However, the self-defined ‘normative power’ seems to be geographically inconsistent and illegitimate due to overriding material interests of both member states and the EU. Unfortunately, the EU can only act as a successful normative power if its reputation as such is intact, however such reputation is under scrutiny because of the material interests. Thus, the EU is still a prominent global actor, but must decide whether to enforce and pursue its ‘normative power’ and change or continue, potentially lose power as a global norms-exporter and influencer.