Post Breakfast
Will the EU ever have a common foreign policy?
It is now generally agreed that a genuine EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) would greatly help in containing unilateralism in international affairs. The importance of such a common platform is being viewed with urgency given the gradual polarisation in international affairs.
On the one hand, there is the re-emergence of an energy-rich Russia (made more complex by the political uncertainties of a post-Putin era and the re-affirmation of China on the global stage with regard to its quest for additional energy sources), and, on the other the electoral worries associated with the coming US presidential election. Unfortunately, despite the high stakes, a CFSP for the EU does not still appear to be round the next corner.
Analysts believe that a CFSP might have evolved by now had there been implementation of the Constitutional Treaty provisions for a EU Foreign Minister and European External Action Service. It might have then made a significant difference.
It is also commonly agreed that the absence of such a paradigm and the growing multi-polarity within the EU itself has delayed the flowering of a real CFSP. Consequently, many consider, that instead of a CFSP, what we are witnessing today is a more flexible approach in EU foreign and security policy with different groups of member states working together on different issues.
EU summit meetings held this year have shown that effective multilateralism within the group have become more of a myth than was earlier anticipated.
Instead of a Common Foreign and Security Policy, key EU heads of government around the G8 table have been seen as acting mostly in their national capacity, while the EU "as an entity" was nowhere to be seen.
The reality appears to be that some EU member states have more political clout than others, and larger countries seem to have more experience in negotiations. This is implicitly creating problems.
Forging a CFSP is proving to be difficult because of the differences of opinion on whether EU should drop the 'purist' approach in favour of a more flexible one, where the Council could mandate different groupings of member states to represent the Union in negotiations on different issues.
Developing the CFSP has also become increasingly difficult following the enlargement of the EU from 15 to 27 members: New member states have inevitably introduced different perspectives to the debate. For example, Poland and other Baltic states, which share a specific history with Russia, want their concerns given more weight when dealing with Moscow.
This is not always accepted by the other EU states.
Having a CFSP within the EU is becoming a more significant issue than before because of emerging problems related to the Middle East and in areas pertaining to international trade mechanisms.
The need for a CFSP is also being underlined more often than not by the US which has a strong influence on the European Union. For years, Washington has insisted on a strong united Europe that can speak with one voice, and have "one telephone number" for expressing viewpoints. Some of this is happening but a lot still needs to be done.
Political scientists and analysts have suggested that the only way to achieve a more binding CFSP is to create a European External Action Service, with current EU High Representative Javier Solana as Foreign Minister and External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner also playing a role.
However, EU member states till now, have not been able to show the necessary political will that could enable such a matrix to operate properly. There has been a lot of discussion in the European Commission in Brussels and also in the European Parliament in Strasbourg about this.
However, no clear consensus appears to have still emerged about the organic nature of either a future proper European External Action Service, built "from the bottom," or the establishment of a European Diplomatic Academy. Demonstrable support from policy planners in this regard has also been lacking.
This has been so despite the fact that national foreign ministers of EU member states are now gradually recognising the need for a common EU foreign policy to boost their chances of success in negotiations.
Finance ministers have also noted the financial advantages of such an arrangement because it would lead to reduction in costs and cutting down on the number of diplomatic missions and associated staff.
It would be interesting at this point to undertake a historical perspective.
The EU, over the years has developed an unprecedented range of instruments on crisis management. This process begun in 1989; after the fall of the Berlin Wall. This event marked the beginning of a new world order, based on international law, multi-nationalism and multilateralism.
There was, at the same time, a parallel development within the EU. A movement was initiated within Europe that may be termed as a progression from a common to a single entity. This was reflected in the move from the common to the single market, and a general institutional tightening which resulted in a move within Europe towards "Brusselsisation."
Over time, Europe has developed capacities in civilian crisis management -- expertise, which it is able to inject today into the international arena. It has also developed the capability of being able to deploy the entire gamut of instruments for nation building.
This has indicated EU's growing strength and a gradual development of their own joint strategic culture in relation to war and peace.
Another important factor has evolved within the EU equation. This pertains to EU's key policy goals that include the promotion of regional stability and the ensuring of security, good governance and justice.
The EU believes that the best way to achieve such a profile would be through the EU projecting its economic power. It may be mentioned here that at present it has one quarter of the world's income and 20% of the world's trade.
They try to convey to others that this success in the economic sphere is largely due to the EU agreeing on core values of democracy, freedom and the rule of law.
In this context, the European Commission tries to project that such achievements would also be possible in the case of others if they pursue as their core foreign policy objective effective multilateralism and multi-stake holder involvement.
It is this principle of management that has led the EU to expand their presence by helping to organise elections outside the EU, by providing development assistance, by contributing military missions to support the United Nations at critical moments, and by using ESDP missions in the fields of peace and security.
In Africa, the EU has disbursed a quarter of a billion dollars to Sudan through the African Peace Facility. In the Middle East, where it is a member of the Quartet, it has provided critical funding to the Palestinian population; and in Iran, Mr. Solana is playing a crucial negotiating role.
Recent polls in several European capitals have indicated one important element -- the majority of EU citizens want the Union to play a bigger role in external affairs, particularly in the areas of good governance, furtherance of peace, democracy and human rights.
It is this common feeling across Europe that has created the aspiration that member states policy makers should find common denominators and take steps to initiate a de facto common foreign policy that is coherent and able to express EU's response to problems globally in 'horizontal' areas, such as energy security, climate change, managing migration, fighting terrorism and combating poverty worldwide.
This recently concluded Lisbon Treaty included by changes that aim to increase the consistency and coherence of the EU's external actions. It agreed on the provision for a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy who will be responsible in the Council for the EU's common foreign and defence policies and for coordinating the external actions of the Commission to ensure consistency and coherence.
A European External Action Service was also envisaged under this scheme. It is expected that this will support the High Representative. The first steps towards a CFSP have been started but the detailed role, function and composition of this service is still under discussion.
I believe that such an objective can only be made possible and sustained through an institutional arrangement and the building of necessary capacity in this regard. This will require structured cooperation on a pan-European basis and also within the various organs of the EU. The scope and dimension related to a CFSP for the EU will be intricate and demanding. Nevertheless, for the sake of international peace and security, it is vital that such a scheme is translated into action. The sooner, the better.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments