There is a crisis in the EU's foreign policy model. Analysis
The current EU foreign policy system is increasingly unable to cope with modern international challenges: It slows down decision-making and intensifies disagreements between European institutions and national governments. At the center of the debate was the question of who should determine the EU's foreign policy and how to distribute powers between European institutions and national capitals. The results of this discussion can be influenced by the Izvestia article.
The crisis of the model
• The crisis of the foreign policy model is becoming more noticeable in the European Union. It is becoming more difficult for Brussels to develop a unified position on key international issues. Disagreements between EU countries are intensifying on issues of support for Ukraine, relations with the United States, China, and the situation in the Middle East. The principle of unanimity regularly slows down decision-making. Against this background, European politicians are increasingly talking about the need to reform the foreign policy system and increase the independence of the EU. The previous model no longer meets the new geopolitical conditions and requires serious updating.
• The EU still does not have a clear answer to the question of who should determine the bloc's foreign policy in a rapidly changing world. Now this function is simultaneously performed by several centers of influence. The European Commission, the European Council, the EU Council at the level of Foreign Ministers, the European External Action Service (EEAS) and the national Ministries of Foreign Affairs of twenty-seven States are involved in the process. This system was gradually formed after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 and the creation of the EEAS in 2010. Today, many European politicians believe that the accumulated institutional problems have ceased to correspond to the scale of modern challenges.
• The main complaint concerns the speed of decision-making: almost every foreign policy statement requires coordination between national capitals, the European Commission, the office of the High Representative and the relevant structures of the EU Council. Any State can slow down the overall process. The principle of unanimity continues to apply in many matters. That is why European diplomacy regularly reacts to international crises much more slowly than the world's largest players.
• France is the main proponent of revising the current model: Paris has long believed that the European diplomatic machine spends too much resources on internal coordination, and the result is often limited. Berlin takes a more cautious position and does not raise the issue of eliminating the EEAS as an end in itself: Germany focuses on improving management efficiency.
• At the same time, the European Union has to respond to the ongoing conflict over Ukraine, the crisis in the Middle East, the intensification of economic competition with China, trade disputes, sanctions regimes and the continuing uncertainty in relations with the United States. Each of these areas requires quick diplomatic solutions. European governments are increasingly questioning whether the current institutional model meets these requirements.
• Foreign policy remains one of the key components of the national sovereignty of the EU member states: some governments support the development of common European diplomacy, while other states strive to maintain the ability to independently determine their own foreign policy course. The discussion of the reform is gradually turning into a discussion about the future of the European project itself and about the limits of the transfer of powers to supranational institutions.
Disputes about the future
• Political disputes have intensified in Europe amid intensifying discussions about reforming the European External Relations Service. The discussion was initiated by several European capitals, led by France, which believe that the EU's foreign policy should become more flexible in the face of growing geopolitical instability.
• Paris has prepared a document with three possible reform options. The first involves a significant reduction in the powers of the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, with the transfer of key foreign policy functions to the European Commission. The second option strengthens the role of the European Council by giving member States more operational authority in managing external relations. In both cases, the influence of the High Representative is significantly reduced.
• The third scenario, on the contrary, provides for the expansion of the powers of the head of EU diplomacy. He is invited to provide greater control over the areas of work of the European commissioners, which are not formally related to foreign policy, but have important geopolitical significance, including trade. Such an approach would strengthen the coordinating role of the EU diplomatic service.
• At the same time, the EEAS is preparing its own proposals, and the first ministerial discussion is scheduled for September 2 in Ireland.
Rivalry of institutions
• Today, the EEAS, headed by former Estonian Prime Minister Kaya Kallas, lacks funding, personnel, and real tools of influence. According to current and former European officials, the organization has lost its clear mission and is losing out to the European Commission headed by Ursula von der Leyen, which has significantly greater financial resources and powers. Callas has launched internal reforms and updated the leadership of the service, but EU countries have not yet presented concrete plans to strengthen it.
• The problems are particularly noticeable against the background of the conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East and the deterioration of relations between Brussels and the United States. Under Callas' leadership, the EU has already adopted 20 packages of sanctions against Russia, which have proved ineffective, and has developed ties with the countries of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, but the expert community believes that the service does not have sufficient funds to promote the interests of the European Union.
• In recent years, the European Commission has gradually expanded its influence in foreign policy by overseeing trade, technology, migration, industrial policy, and defense programs. As a result, the EEAS is mainly engaged in collecting information and coordinating the positions of EU states, while key international initiatives are increasingly being implemented by the Commission itself. An additional role is played by the President of the European Council, Antonio Costa, who is also actively involved in international negotiations.
The blurring of powers was especially evident in relations with Israel. The Commissioner for the Mediterranean, Dubravka Shuica, actually represented the EU in negotiations with the Israeli side, while Kaya Kallas lost direct contact with the Israeli Foreign Minister. Many European diplomats consider this situation to be evidence of the lack of a unified foreign policy line.
• The situation is complicated by the strained relationship between Callas and Ursula von der Leyen. Despite public denials of the conflict, European officials talk about personal rivalry, but admit that the main problem is institutional in nature. Similar disagreements existed between von der Leyen and the previous head of European diplomacy, Josep Borrell.
• Callas has begun personnel changes, and a new stage of reforms is expected after the summer. However, many officials doubt that this will be enough, especially given the possible budget cuts in the next seven-year EU financial plan, which will enter into force in 2028. In the future, the EEAS is likely to focus primarily on analytics, intelligence information, and expert support for the EU's foreign policy.
Possible consequences
• The European foreign policy system was created in the context of a relatively stable world order after the end of the Cold War. At that time, Brussels hoped that economic integration, diplomatic pressure and sanctions mechanisms, as well as close cooperation with the United States, would be able to ensure Europe's sustainable influence on global processes. Over the past few years, the international situation has changed much faster than European institutions have managed to adapt to the new conditions.
• Modern international politics is built around fierce competition from major powers, and states are increasingly using trade restrictions, tariffs, export controls, financial sanctions, energy resources, and technological restrictions as tools of geopolitics. Military conflicts, particularly in Ukraine and Iran, have once again become a constant factor in world politics. In such circumstances, the European Union regularly faces the need to develop a unified position for twenty-seven states at once, so the common voice of the union sounds less consistent than European leaders expected.
• Today, the European External Relations Service has a network of more than 140 diplomatic missions around the world. Its annual budget exceeds €1 billion. Despite this scale, critics believe that the distribution of powers between the EEAS, the European Commission and national diplomatic agencies creates a constant duplication of functions.
• The outcome of the current discussion will have an impact far beyond the European bureaucracy. They will determine whether the European Union will be able to respond more quickly to international crises and form a unified mechanism for making foreign policy decisions. At the same time, European leaders will have to find a balance between national sovereignty and supranational governance.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
