Peace is enshrined as a core value in the European Union’s (EU) external action. However, recent policies are contributing to a remarkable change. Rearmament and hard security appear to be prioritised at the expense of peacebuilding, conflict prevention, and development cooperation.

The end of the Second World War marked the beginning of a European experiment in peace: the integration of formerly belligerent states into a common political and economic project. The European Union – built on the values of cooperation and shared prosperity – has undisputedly succeeded in turning one of the world’s most war-torn regions into a space of stability.

However, the narrative of the “peace project” often portrays the EU as detached from the violent conflicts and wars that have flared in its close neighbourhood. Moreover, it overlooks the continent’s enduring colonial legacies and the resulting perpetuation of global inequalities. To understand the EU as a peace project today, it must be placed within broader historical and geopolitical contexts – acknowledging both its external legacies and the trajectory of its current international engagement.

The EU’s transactional turn in international partnerships

Peace is enshrined as a core value in the EU’s external action. Article 21(2)(c) of the Treaty on European Union commits the EU to “preserve peace, prevent conflicts and strengthen international security, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.” Over the past two decades, the EU has set up the European External Action Service and the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI) in order to do both: to support the objective of working for peace and stability globally in an integrated manner as well as to give the EU more profile on the global stage.

The Commission’s Directorate General for International Partnerships (DG INTPA) is also working to “uphold and promote European values and interests, and contribute to peace and prosperity in the world”. Additionally, the EU has a number of Special Representatives, who play an important role in supporting mediation and diplomacy efforts in several conflict contexts worldwide.

However, the adoption of a series of recent policies is contributing to a remarkable change in the way the EU conducts its external action. It risks becoming more transactional, reactive, and short-term oriented. This shift is prominently illustrated by the EU’s ‘Global Gateway’ initiative which centres large-scale investment, infrastructure, and digital connectivity in international partnerships. It signals a strong prioritisation of strategic and economic interests over value-based approaches.

By allocating less resources and political attention to peacebuilding, conflict prevention, and development cooperation, the EU risks progressively sidelining fragile and conflict-affected countries and regions. With the EU’s commitments to conflict prevention increasingly under pressure, peacebuilding civil society organisations warn of both shrinking political will and financial support for long-term investments in peace.

The European peace project in a new era of insecurity

Russia’s war on Ukraine has shaken Europe’s sense of security. In response, the EU has stepped up efforts to increase military capabilities and strengthen its Member States’ defence industry. This includes the adoption of the Act in Support of Ammunition Production (ASAP) in 2023, the proposal of a European Defence Industrial Programme (EDIP), and a  regulation to stimulate defence-related investments within the EU budget. Notably, the European Commission has presented a historic “ReArm Europe/Readiness 2030” plan. This aims to unlock up to 800 billion euros to incentivise increased defence spending among Member States.

This emerging focus on rearmament and hard security appears to be increasingly gaining traction at the expense of non-violent conflict resolution. Following recent developments in many EU member states, the EU is planning to significantly reduce its official development assistance (ODA) spendings in its next budget (2028-2035), the so-called Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF).

A leaked draft of the Commission’s proposal for the next MFF suggests the merging of current external funding instruments. This potential merger gives cause for serious concern about risking the independence of humanitarian aid, the deprioritisation of development goals, and letting peacebuilding and conflict prevention fall through the cracks. A single, flexible funding envelope for external action might favour short-term crisis response over long-term engagements. It might also place disproportionate emphasis on geopolitical priorities. This could potentially undermine the EU’s credibility as a principled and reliable international partner.

Conclusion: placing peacebuilding at the centre

At this historic juncture, the EU cannot stop investing in long-term peacebuilding and conflict prevention. Eighty years after the end of the Second World War, Europe’s identity as a peace project is at risk – not only from external threats, but also from internal strategy. A truly secure Europe requires more than arms and deterrence. It must prioritise human security, inclusive dialogue, and long-term conflict resolution.