Liberal values, realist action: beyond the "values versus interests" debate
The framing of foreign policy as a binary choice between values and interests is omnipresent in debates on European foreign policy and Europe’s place in the global order. Proponents of a more “realist” posture argue that Europe must shed its normative idealism in favour of hard-nosed geopolitics. Yet this dichotomy is not only false but strategically unsound.
Values and interests are not opposites; they are intertwined. For the European Union, protecting its foundational values—individual freedoms, rule of law, human dignity, and international norms—is not a moral indulgence but a core strategic interest.
The “values versus interests” debate: a false binary
Whenever European foreign policy faces challenging decisions or a strategic dilemma, these situations are often framed as an irreconcilable contradiction between values and interests. In a simplistic and often overly pointed way, states are often described as facing the choice between an action that aligns with liberal values or an action that secures their material interests. The choices European states are presented with in recent years illustrate this debate, which is often wrongly framed as a binary: Should they fully decouple from any economic activity with China because of the disagreements on Chinese domestic politics, or should they instead totally ignore ideological divergences and double down on economic engagement? Should they prioritise saving the lives of civilians through pushing for (or even enforcing) a ceasefire, or should they support the side claiming to fight war against terrorism? Should they support civil society forces and groups promoting individual rights, or should they sell weapons to a government which systematically cracks down on these groups?
The examples above show that the framing of political decisions as a binary choice between values and interests is not helpful. Rather, it falsely opposes two terms: on one side, there are European values, very often defined as liberal values and principles like democratic structures, rule of law, individual freedoms, dignity of the individual. On the other side, there are hardcore interests, like economic growth, prosperity, and security through addressing threats.
This narrative overly reduces the complexity of foreign policy into a binary: either idealism based on how the world ought to be, or realism that accepts power struggles as inevitable. As a result, both sides are easily caricatured: idealists are accused of avoiding hard truths, while realists are portrayed as driven solely by material considerations.
Moving on: values as interests
The “values versus interests” binary is neither helpful nor an accurate illustration of global politics. It is hard to imagine cases where states will be presented with binary choices in politics, given that many actors shape foreign policy decision-making in different directions. Furthermore, the definition of interests is, in many cases, also driven by an ideological underpinning. Take the definition of national interests by Gholz, Press and Sapolsky (1993) in their article “Come Home, America,” a central academic piece shaping US thinking on restraint as a grand strategy. While policy-makers and intellectuals alike might agree with the idea that security of homeland territory (meaning: no attacks, territorial integrity, no threats) and prosperity are core national interests, those coming from non-liberal systems might disagree on whether freedom is a key national interest.
This definition of national interest also illustrates why the “values versus interests” narrative is misplaced in European foreign policy and reflections on Europe’s role as a geopolitical actor. The European project is based on liberal values and ideas: Europe’s prosperity model is heavily reliant on (intra-European and international) trade and the rules structuring it, and the idea of shared democratic values is a central component of and criterion for EU enlargement. The central pillar of the European security order is NATO, which is not only a military but also explicitly a political alliance.
Consequently, if a key European interest consists in preserving the continent's security, prosperity, and freedom, the debate must rather frame European liberal values as the key European interests. European liberal-democratic values, materialised in a belief in the rules-based international order and legislation based on the principles of liberal democracy in Europe, are critical underpinnings of the structures that ensure European security and prosperity.
Consequently, calling for protection of these values and including these values as a guideline in European foreign policy is not idealistic; it even allows bridging the often exaggerated gap between idealists and realists. In fact, policy-makers and analysts can rely on European values as a guideline, and then, in a realist manner, focus on the material necessities of foreign policy and grand strategy—meaning military and economic tools—to implement them and promote security and prosperity. Following realist approaches, this assessment can be perfectly driven by key theoretical underpinnings like fears about the security dilemma or concerns about relative gains among states. However, moving the framing from “values versus interests” to “values as interests” would bring an end to an outdated dichotomy and false binary choices; instead, it accounts for the more complex reality of international relations and the variety of possible foreign policy choices.
Gesine Weber - Founder Geopolitical Europe | PhD King's College London | Europe, security & defence, grand strategy.
This first appeared on Gesine's Substack.
Photo by cottonbro studio
