The purpose of foreign policy for any country is to safeguard its national interests and realise its international goals. But what happens when 27 countries attempt to speak with one voice? More or less nothing.
Now that the Lisbon Treaty has paved the way for a new external diplomatic service, it was apparent that there are serious shortcomings for the new European External Action Service (EEAS). The main one being that there is no mission statement for the European Union's foreign policy. What's more, member states are refusing to give up their sovereignty over foreign and security policies therefore there is a lot of ambivalence and confusion.
This was apparent during a recent workshop in Brussels sponsored by the Al Jisr project and aimed at familiarising journalists with the EU's inner workings and its newly strengthened foreign policy as well as EU-GCC relations. There was a very important subliminal message coming out of officials and think tanks alike in Brussels: that the EU wants to be a quiet player in the current world order and is seeking its comfort zone, rather than pushing the boundaries of what it might stand up for. In other words, there is no frustration that the EU could do more and it isn't. If anything, it seems Europe still finds it easy to rely on the United States.
This means a common position on an important international issue such as the Middle East peace process is virtually impossible.
It is widely accepted that the EU should play a more active role, given that it is the largest donor of money to the Palestinians. It is also accepted that the EU could provide some much needed balance to the US approach, which favours Israel openly. But unfortunately, the EU is more comfortable supplying the cash and keeping a low diplomatic profile. As Palestinians and Israelis met in Washington last month to resume the peace process, there was no sign of the Europeans.
In fact, the EU is in a very good position to put pressure on Israel by suspending their trade agreement or leading a colony boycott movement, which is to boycott Israeli products made in illegal Israeli colonies.
As the Saudi Ambassador to Belgium Abdullah Al Mouallimi told us, it could refrain from granting customs privileges to products that are produced in colonies. Alas, even this less obvious form of foreign policy is still very much frowned upon in the EU.
Of course, one reason for this failure at the Union level is that individual member states of the EU want a more active national role than a collective one.
Countries like Great Britain, France, and Germany have well-established foreign policies and relations with other strong nations and it is difficult to expect them to give that up for a collective voice. Why would they abandon their well-established foreign ministries, and their hobby horses in the foreign policy arena? Other strong countries (Spain, Italy…) might simply not be interested in a particular issue and choose not to act.
But the rise of China and India and the imminent change in balance of power in international relations does not give the Europeans the luxury of continuing to opt out for long. Each of these individual European countries will have to decide when, not if, is the right time to work hard on a united voice for a strong Europe. But the unfortunate reality is that there is no sense of realisation in Brussels that Asia has to be watched.
Since EU foreign policy chief Lady Catherine Ashton's "foreign ministry" was established, there have been both personal and logistical challenges. At most, Ashton has succeeded in regulating "courtesy calls" to Europe's main capitals. But is there any initiation for a strong EU foreign policy position? No.
EU parliamentarian Dominique Baudice told us, "Unique diplomacy might take 50 years." This is obviously far too long a period. And by then it will be too late to try to upstage others or even claim a leading position.
Ineffective approach
Of course Ashton could surprise everyone and choose to act on political affairs and get involved in bigger ways but it is difficult to see that coming as she has so far stuck to middle-of-the-road statements that hardly garner any reaction.
An example of continuing EU ineptness (despite Ashton's new service) is when the EU recently failed to secure enhanced speaking rights at the UN and at the World Bank. The EU is the world's leading donor bloc, and should have been able to argue a strong case that it deserves a larger presence in the meetings, while at present it is not even an observer at its executive board.
To add salt to the EU's wounds, at the IMF there are ongoing negotiations that smaller EU member states would have to be let go in order to allow a stronger representation by Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC). These two instances show how the member states are still in the driving seat, and the EU is being sidelined. They are serious setbacks and require urgent attention.
The IMF and World Bank fiasco also sheds light on the dynamics between the EU and member states which sit side by side in such settings and speak with several voices instead of one.
As one of the experts put it, "We are seeing the teething problems of the EU in light of the Lisbon Treaty."
While it is very difficult to be optimistic about the prospects of enhancing Europe's external clout at this point, it is also tricky to completely rule out Europe's political influence in the coming decades.
