As attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea have intensified in recent months, with Houthis announcing a naval blockade that directly threatens the vessels headed towards Israel, including the routes to the port of Haifa. As the fragile ceasefire seems to be hanging by a thread, the Red Sea crisis has reached a critical point. This escalation has yet again raised questions about Europe’s strategic posture in the region- a stance defined by humanitarian leadership and diplomatic caution. Since late 2023, Houthi-led strikes on vessels passing the Bab al Mandab strait have challenged global trade routes and regional stability. For Europe, which depends heavily on maritime commerce and seeks to uphold international law, the stakes are high.

The European Union (EU) has, over the past decade, been delivering life saving humanitarian assistance to a country grappling with one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. While being one of Yemen’s largest humanitarian donors, its limited diplomatic and security engagement underscores a broader pattern: the EU leads with principles, but often acts with restraint. The EU has been managing the Red Sea crisis through a humanitarian- led approach in Yemen. However, in today’s volatile world, can this value- driven model still hold its ground? 

Europe’s Humanitarian Commitment in Yemen

The EU’s humanitarian commitment in Yemen has been visible since the beginning of the civil war in Yemen in 2015. The EU, together with its member states, has provided over €1.5 billion in combined humanitarian and development aid. In 2024 alone, the European Commission pledged €125 million funding towards the humanitarian betterment of Yemen’s vulnerable populations, with  food assistance, nutrition programs, emergency healthcare, clean water, and shelter being the key areas of focus. This aid is distributed through major UN-led initiatives- including those by United Nations World Food Programme (WFP), UNICEF, along with WHO and supports operations led by international and local NGOs. All these efforts are coordinated in EU-UN partnerships, ensuring that humanitarian support reaches Yemen’s most vulnerable communities.

The EU frames its consistent involvement in Yemen as guided by principles of neutrality, impartiality, and adherence to international humanitarian law. However, the recent escalation in the Red Sea has worsened Yemen’s already dire situation-disrupting aid delivery and contributing to heightened regional instability. 

Its public discourse frequently emphasizes a long-standing commitment to supporting the most vulnerable without political interference. While the Yemen crisis has been termed as one of the worst humanitarian crises of our time by the EU Commissioner for Crisis Management Janez Lenarčič, the rapid escalation of the Red Sea crisis only added to the severity to the already devastating situation in Yemen. 

This international posture is not accidental but embedded in the EU’s broader foreign doctrine. Scholars refer to the EU as a “Normative Power Europe”- meaning its influence is based on its commitment to peace, human rights, and multilateralism rather than coercive power. In Yemen, this manifests as consistent engagement with UN-led frameworks, undeterred support for inclusive governance, and avoidance of any stance that may bring its neutrality into question. 

The Red Sea Crisis and Maritime Security 

Since late 2023, renewed Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping have yet again pushed the international community to respond swiftly and strategically. The Bab al- Mandab strait is a key choke point for international trade. With threats ranging from missile strikes to drone attacks, commercial vessels are not only navigating international waters but also a web of risks caused by disrupted global shipping routes, increased insurance costs, which has also drawn intense military reactions from the U.S and its allies. 

In February 2024, the EU launched Operation Aspides, a maritime security initiative under its Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), aimed at protecting navigation in the Red Sea. The operation, named after the Greek word for “shield,” includes naval escorts, intelligence-sharing and deterrence patrols. The operation is led by Italy and is headquartered in Greece. It is strictly non-offensive, focusing solely on self-defense and surveillance.

However, the operation lays bare the EU’s lingering challenges in presenting a united strategic front. While Germany, France, and Italy contributed naval vessels or command capabilities, they chose to move forward with a cautious approach reiterating that their vessels would operate under national command with strict defensive rules of engagement. Other member states, such as Spain and Ireland, expressed reluctance over ceding escalating military confrontation, stating that military involvement could exacerbate the regional conflict. The visible internal debates regarding the collective command structure and military risks have yet again highlighted persistent divides within EU member states and the organisation’s foreign policy.

Notably, the EU despite having a presence in the Red Sea region, chose not to participate in the U.S.-U.K. airstrikes on Houthi missile launch sites in January 2024. Following this the French and Italian ships that were operating under national flags maintained non-offensive roles, reiterating their presence as strictly for surveillance and self-defense. This cautious balancing act brings to light Europe’s intent to protect maritime security while consciously keeping itself from hard power interventions. 

Between Diplomacy and Distance

While the EU supports the UN-led peace process in Yemen, it is yet to launch an independent diplomatic initiative or take on a mediation role. Its political involvement is limited to high-level statements and support for multilateral efforts. Although the EU routinely calls for a return to peace talks and compliance with international law, showing its commitment to world peace, its lack of coercive tools or unified political will hampers its influence over the conflict’s trajectory. This cautious stance may stem from its institutional policy of maintaining neutrality in order to avoid escalating an already severe conflict and hampering humanitarian aid and assistance.

In February 2024, Yemen’s foreign minister publicly urged the EU to consider stronger action, including terming the Houthis as a terrorist outfit, a measure the EU has resisted in favor of preserving humanitarian dialogue and neutrality. While this ensures accessibility for aid operations, it also limits political leverage. 

From a theoretical lens, this tension reflects the EU’s identity as a civilian power- an organisation that has given precedence to humanitarianism over military force in its foreign policy. In past conflicts, such as Syria and Libya, the EU adopted a similar policy of being a major humanitarian donor, but being a cautious voice in hard diplomacy. But the Red Sea crisis brings in a sharper contrast. The U.S launched Operation Prosperity Guardian and subsequent airstrikes, China, while quieter, continues to maintain a military base in Djibouti and reportedly negotiated safe passage for Chinese- flagged ships. Gulf states like the UAE and Saudi Arabia, though more reserved this time around, have previously exercised significant military influence in Yemen. 

In light of this, European analysts are asking hard questions regarding Europe’s stiff policy in the shifting sands of regional and international crises. A recent European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) report argues that the EU’s restraint, while principled, risks marginalization. It states that without more assertive engagement, Europe may be seen as a bystander to strategic development that affects its direct interests. With the shifting sands of the current world order, a more assertive EU presence, such as taking a more proactive role in diplomatic mediation or even leveraging economic tools to influence key actors in the region, could help the bloc gain meaningful headway in addressing the crisis. It would also help protect vital trade routes and ensure the safety of its military and humanitarian personnel.

Conclusion

The EU’s role in Yemen and the Red Sea crisis encapsulates a broader tension in its foreign policy: the challenge of balancing principled engagement with strategic effectiveness. While its humanitarian leadership remains undisputed- with millions of Yemenis receiving lifesaving aid through EU-supported programs, the region’s growing reliance on force, transactional diplomacy, and strategic alliances puts Europe’s restrained posture under increasing scrutiny. This raises questions about the EU’s voice and standing as a global leader.

Operation Aspides represents a modest step towards strategic autonomy, a message to the world that Europe can defend its shared interests while upholding its commitment to legality and restraint. However, it also lays bare the difficulty of forging unity among member states with divergent threat interpretations and historical alignments. 

Whether Europe’s model of “normative power” can adapt to the demands of a rapidly changing world order remains uncertain. But what is clear is that the EU can no longer solely rely on humanitarian goodwill to maintain influence in crises where military posture, economic leverage, and strategic clarity are increasingly decisive.

In the Red Sea, as in other global flashpoints, the European Union must ask itself: Can soft power alone safeguard European interests? Or does its commitment to principle now call for a more assertive approach- one that balances values with strategic action?