Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1943023483

Josep Borrell's 'jungle' trope was no slip of the tongue

EU's foreign policy chief suggests Europe has to unite to tame what's outside its own tidy garden, raising awkward colonial connotations.

Analysis | Europe

“Europe is a garden.” With this odd choice of words  on October 13, Josep Borrell, the foreign affairs chief of the European Union, inaugurated a Bruges-based pilot program for a new European Diplomatic Academy, or EDA.  

“We have built a garden,” Borrell continued, where “everything works.” But the lush lawns are under threat: “most of the rest of the world is a jungle” and, as neoconservative thinker Robert  Kagan once put it, “the jungle grows back.”  

Unsurprisingly, the speech was met with indignation among the public, government officials, and  diplomats. Ethiopia’s national security adviser Redwan Hussien wondered: “Is Africa still a jungle only meant to furnish someone else’s Garden”? Canada’s ambassador to the UN Bob Rae likewise concluded: “What a terrible analogy Mr Borrell has made. Surely history and our own lived experience teaches us that no part of the world is free from violence.”  

That Borrell made these remarks is particularly significant: prior to his current post as EU foreign affairs chief, he served as a member of the Convention on the Future of Europe, as president of the European Parliament, and as president of the European University Institute.  Borrell is, in other words, a figure currently at the forefront of the European project. 

The metaphor’s legacies, of course, go back very far. Characterizing world politics as a tidy division between peaceful garden and violent jungle has obvious imperialist connotations. Indeed, the Western cultural gaze teems with jungles: from the Jungle Book to Tarzan to Indiana Jones, again and again we are invited to follow a white hero’s journey into deep, dark forests peopled by savage natives. 

In all these stories we return home to the wood-paneled tea rooms of one or another metropolitan safe haven. The metaphorical garden, in these fantasies, is the ultimate refuge from the literal jungle. Its cultivation, predictability, and tameness serve as constant reminders of the human interventions and control at the heart of “civilization.” 

Invoking such a cultural framing in 2022 is unsavory at best. It is also diplomatically counterproductive: EU and U.S. efforts to galvanize support among nations of the Global South against Putin’s Russia are thus far losing what Borrell himself has called a “battle of narratives.” In the midst of this, it is, to put it mildly, unwise when a top EU official depicts those very same nations as “jungle.” 

And yet tellingly, this was no mere slip of the tongue. Borrell has previously expressed his  intention to “clarify the narrative we [the EU] want to spread.” To do so, he repeatedly uses  historically blind language as in a keynote last spring on defending “our civilization.” Even his half-hearted apology for last week’s remarks appeared only to repeat the core message: after all, Borrell stressed, we are currently facing a choice between world order “based on principles accepted by all” and “the law of the jungle.” 

We might ask why Borrell is able to say all this without real repercussions. But the more important question we ought to ask is: what kind of European self- understanding makes this imagery plausible to the speaker, his Bruges audience, and his fellow EU officials?  

The EDA pilot is another step in the direction of establishing a formal diplomatic pipeline for  the European Union. It is intended to strengthen the EU’s foreign policy profile by means of a trained corps of EU diplomats. It is also the logical culmination of a development that has been underway for over a decade. In 2010, the EU established the European External Action Service, the EU’s very first common diplomatic body — under Borrell’s leadership — with the aim of advancing the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy, or CFSP. 

But the exact legal status, diplomatic authority, and scope of the EEAS are not yet clear. Is it a “quasi diplomatic corps”? Will it transform “European sovereignty, diplomacy and national identities”?  What’s more, having a corps of EU diplomats at all is not uncontroversial to begin with. The idea of EU diplomacy presumes an internal cohesion or a common European point of view on a host of  geopolitical and economic matters. This internal cohesion may be, as critics such as Perry  Anderson or Stefan Auer contend, more wishful thinking than reality. 

International Relations scholars have wrestled with the prospect of a common European foreign policy ever since ideas for the CFSP were first floated. Much of the academic debate has centered on the idea of Europe as a “normative power.” Its principal exponent, political scientist Ian Manners, ascribes the status of an “ideational actor” to the EU: according to Manners, the EU is  characterized by common principles and, as such, poised to diffuse and uphold norms for the international community. 

The problem with this view, as with Borrell’s speech, is that it claims a total separation between European foreign policy today and European “foreign policy” in the past. What is most worrying is thus not only the crude colonial dichotomy Borrell conjures up, but also his warning that  “the jungle could invade the garden.” 

This is in fact the whole point — “my most important message” — of the speech: “The gardeners have to go to the jungle.” It is what the EU foreign policy chief means by intensifying European engagement “with the rest of the world.” If the EU doesn’t act more proactively, “the rest of the world will invade us, by different ways and means.” 

This is, it seems, the EU’s own brand of missionary liberal internationalism. EEAS foreign policy is not about building walls: to Josep Borrell, walls are not enough. As he puts it, building walls around a nice little garden won’t fend off the specter: “the jungle has a strong growth capacity.” 

The irony of Borrell’s vision of European-led world order is that it is equally based on the “will  of the strongest” that he is so worried about. Centering EU foreign policy on European strength, autonomy, and greatness not only reminds us of a painful history — it is also a stance that only serves to undermine the very foundations for international cooperation. Borrell would do well to heed his own advice: “We need to do our homework to define more clearly what kind of world we want to build and the role Europe wants to occupy in it.”


Josep Borrell, the foreign affairs chief of the European Union. (Shutterstock/martinbertrand.fr)
Analysis | Europe
Daniel Noboa, Xi Jinping
Top photo credit: Beijing, China.- In the photos, Chinese President Xi Jinping (right) and his Ecuadorian counterpart, Daniel Noboa (left), during a meeting in the Great Hall of the People, the venue for the main protocol events of the Chinese government on June 26, 2025 (Isaac Castillo/Pool / Latin America News Agency via Reuters Connect)

Why Ecuador went straight to China for relief

Latin America

Marco Rubio is visiting Mexico and Ecuador this week, his third visit as Secretary of State to Latin America.

While his sojourn in Mexico is likely to grab the most headlines given all the attention the Trump administration has devoted to immigration and Mexican drug cartels, the one to Ecuador is primarily designed to “counter malign extra continental actors,” according to a State Department press release.The reference appears to be China, an increasingly important trading and investment partner for Ecuador.

keep readingShow less
US Capitol
Top image credit: Lucky-photographer via shutterstock.com

Why does peace cost a trillion dollars?

Washington Politics

As Congress returns from its summer recess, Washington’s attention is turning towards a possible government shutdown.

While much of the focus will be on a showdown between Senate Democrats and Donald Trump, a subplot is brewing as the House and Senate, led by Republicans but supported by far too many Democrats, fight over how big the Pentagon’s budget should be. The House voted to give Trump his requested trillion dollar budget, while the Senate is demanding $22 billion more.

keep readingShow less
Yemen Ahmed al-Rahawi
Top image credit: Funeral in Sana a for senior Houthi officials killed in Israeli strikes Honor guard hold up a portraits of Houthi government s the Prime Minister Ahmed al-Rahawi and other officials killed in Israeli airstrikes on Thursday, during a funeral ceremony at the Shaab Mosque in Sanaa, Yemen, 01 September 2025. IMAGO/ via REUTERS

Israel playing with fire in Yemen

Middle East

“The war has entered a new phase,” declared Mohammed al-Bukhaiti, a senior official in Yemen’s Ansar Allah movement, after Israeli jets streaked across the Arabian Peninsula to kill the group’s prime minister and a swathe of his cabinet in Yemen’s capital, Sana’a.

The senior official from Ansar Allah, the movement commonly known as the Houthis, was not wrong. The strike, which Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz promised was “just the beginning,” signaled a fundamental shift in the cartography of a two-year war of attrition between the region’s most technologically advanced military and its most resilient guerrilla force.

The retaliation was swift, if militarily ineffective: missiles launched towards Israel disintegrated over Saudi Arabia. Internally, a paranoid crackdown ensued on perceived spies. Houthi security forces stormed the offices of the World Food Programme and UNICEF, detaining at least 11 U.N. personnel in a sweep immediately condemned by the U.N. Secretary General.

The catalyst for this confrontation was the war in Gaza, unleashed by Hamas’s October 7 attacks on Israel, which provided the Houthis with the ideological fuel and political opportunity to transform themselves. Seizing the mantle of Palestinian solidarity — a cause their leader, Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, frames as a “sacrifice in the cause of God Almighty ” — they graduated from a menacing regional actor into a global disruptor, launching missiles toward Israel just weeks after Hamas’s attacks and holding one of the world’s most vital shipping lanes hostage.

The chessboard was dangerously rearranged in May, when the Trump administration, eager for an off-ramp from a costly and ineffective air campaign, brokered a surprise truce with the Houthis. Mediated by Oman, the deal was simple: the U.S. would stop bombing Houthi targets, and the Houthis would stop attacking American ships. President Trump, in his characteristic style, claimed the Houthis had “capitulated” while also praising their “bravery.”

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.