This inconsistency reveals the limited progress Europe has made toward achieving the "strategic autonomy" it frequently claims.

BRUSSELS, Jan. 8 (Xinhua) -- The recent contrasting reactions from Brussels to two U.S.-related issues -- the mounting pressure over Greenland and the forcible seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro -- underscore a deeper ailment in Europe's foreign policy: the EU champions international law when its interests are threatened by U.S. actions, yet remains conspicuously silent when Washington itself breaches those same principles elsewhere.

This inconsistency reveals the limited progress Europe has made toward achieving the "strategic autonomy" it frequently claims.

In the wake of these developments, European Commission spokesperson Anitta Hipper offered sharply divergent responses during Monday's briefing.

When asked about the Greenland issue, she said the EU would "uphold the principles of national sovereignty, territorial integrity, the inviolability of borders and the UN Charter," calling them "universal principles" that the EU "will not stop defending." Yet when questions turned to the legality of the U.S. operation in Venezuela, Hipper demurred, saying only that "as the events just unfolded, it is too early to look into and assess all the implications in terms of legal assessment."

It appears that Europe knows how to defend principles -- only when it might not offend Washington. However, this muted stance stands in stark contrast to the broader European public's reaction, as European media and academics have openly labeled the U.S. raid in Venezuela as "lawless," "imperialist," and a breach of the very norms that underpin the post-war order.

As Volker Turk, UN high commissioner for human rights, warned, "This military intervention -- in contravention of Venezuelan sovereignty and the UN charter -- damages the architecture of international security, making every country less safe. "

Europe may understand the law, but its institutions are unwilling to acknowledge it. Therein lies the larger problem: international law does not draw its authority from selective enforcement.

As the United Nations' 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law affirmed, these norms apply "equally to all States, without distinction." When Europe invokes legal principles only when its own interests are at stake or its own borders are threatened, it weakens the very universality that gives those principles their strength.

This is not merely a matter of moral inconsistency, but also strategic vulnerability. A continent that relies heavily on Washington's security guarantees cannot confront the truth that the United States can, at times, be the very actor eroding the norms Europe claims to uphold. It is only when the pressure shifts directly onto the EU that Brussels rediscovers its legal vocabulary.

Such a pattern is increasingly untenable and perilous. In Washington, the Monroe Doctrine is enjoying a revival, with U.S. President Donald Trump declaring that Venezuela will not be the last site of U.S. interventionism. His rhetoric has already shifted toward Greenland, suggesting that the Arctic outpost may not be the final European territory to feel the weight of America's geopolitical reach.

International law protects states not simply by constraining adversaries, but by imposing limits on all countries, thus underpinning global stability and peace. If the EU hopes to reduce its own vulnerability -- including when an ally's actions clash with its own interests -- it must uphold these norms, irrespective of who violates them. After all, strategic autonomy is impossible without the resolve to defend universal principles universally.