‘Who do I call if I want to call Europe,” the US Secretary of State in the 1970s, Henry Kissinger, is said to have asked. Although Kissinger himself denies saying that, the question amply sums up the dilemma at that time. That is no longer the case now.
The EU has now become a globally acknowledged economic and political actor. It is the world’s biggest trader today. That makes the conduct of external relations significant.
As the EU prepares to relaunch itself as a unified bloc of 27 next year with a double-hatted presidency of the European Commission and the European Council, the time has come to further reduce its institutional duplication. The representation and foreign affairs duo at the helm should also be given real powers. Foreign dignitaries are often confused by the bloc’s multitude of leaders and representatives. Transparency and operational efficiency in the conduct and maintenance of relations with third parties should thus be enhanced. But everything depends on the right political willingness among the member-states.
Understanding the inner workings of the EU is not easy. The political assumptions and the historical context embodying the crucial underlying factors of the existence of the EU are less widely understood and less commonly shared than in the past.
In the 1950s, the EU departed from the ideals of reconciliation as well as from the foundations of realism and common sense. The legal instruments of the three founding Communities have been supplemented by several modifying treaties aimed to enhance the effectiveness of Community/EU policy and decision-making. Despite this, the multi-member EU remains a hybrid, multi-faceted technocratic bloc, with a dualistic layer of competences.
International trade plays a crucial role in the external relations of the EU. Since the early days, the development and maintenance of commercial relations with third countries and other regional blocs is largely an exclusive (Community) competence, with a designated Trade Commissioner tasked with policy-making, negotiating agreements, and decision-making. The Trade Commissioner also safeguards the interests of the bloc in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and seeks market access enhancing opportunities through deals with other countries or blocs like the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).
Coordinated voice
After the Maastricht Treaty paved the way for a common foreign and security policy in 1992, the EU Commissioner for External Relations and an EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs gave the EU visibility with a coordinated voice in global issues like the US-presided Middle East peace process.
But the new posts led to some confusion among external partners on who does what. When third parties conclude trade deals with the EU, it also means a mandatory attached political dialogue that will include other officials — not just the Trade Commissioner.
In a bid to rule out institutional competence and power clashes, in 2009 the Lisbon Treaty merged the two EU posts into the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. It was seen as an attempt to smoothen the coordination, representation and communication on all matters related to the common security and defence policy. But the post backed by the European External Action Service (EEAS) lacks the power to chalk out policies independently in regional and international organisations like Nato (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) or the United Nations (UN) and its affiliates on behalf of the EU.
The position of a permanent President of the European Council is an attempt to create a President of Europe: a person appointed by the member-states to represent the EU meaningfully; it should not be a ceremonial role. An EU headed by personalities with an international profile, political experience and firm relations with world leaders will be more dynamic than an EU led by occasional persuaders and/or dealmakers in the domestic politics of member-states.
The positions of the High Representative and the President are, however, filled by common agreement among the member-states. Although the member-states gave legal powers to the EU in 2009, allowing the bloc to enter into contractual obligations on their behalf, the countries are nonetheless unlikely to cede their influence in high politics policy areas.
With the EU institutions growing in strength, they gradually began to shoulder a wide range of responsibilities.
But since 2015, the bonds have come under strain after some member-states bore the brunt of the migrant crisis. Some others like Spain, Poland, Germany, Austria and Italy, are faced with domestic issues that have rocked EU integration.
Looking ahead, the appointment of a well-empowered President and High Representative capable of asserting the EU’s stature on a reshaped world stage – with multipolar leadership and multilateral management – remains an open question. Only time will tell whether the member-states will be prepared to modify the complex, swift action impeding EU’s institutional set-up in a reaction to rapidly changing realities in the outside world.
Johann Weick is an expert in international trade policy, European integration and specialist in GCC-EU relations.
