FINLAND’S FOREIGN minister Alexander Stubb put his finger on the reality last week when he urged European Union ministers not to delay agreeing the new European External Action Service (EAS). “Every day that we lose right now is too late. We live in a new, multi-polar world with a plethora of players ranging from China to Brazil, India and Russia. They could not care less if Europe cannot get its act together.”
The EAS is expected to have up to 7,000 staff, including 4,500 officials abroad, and have missions in more than 130 countries. Political agreement was reached but the European Parliament has yet to approve its budget.
The service will be directed by Baroness Ashton, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, as laid down in the Lisbon Treaty. Creation of this new apparatus is one of the treaty’s principal objectives, precisely to address such realities of a rapidly changing world. Its guiding principles are “democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law”. The treaty commits member states to define and implement a foreign and security policy, and arrangements are intended to ensure consistency between aims and means.
Political tussles between the European Commission, Council of Ministers and individual member states over lines of accountability and control are in danger of distorting the original design and purpose of the exercise. The commission wants to retain control over EU development aid, enlargement policy and neighbourhood relations. The European Council and the Council of Ministers have responsibility under the treaty for defining and implementing the policy in an inter-governmental fashion without majority voting or legislation, while individual states (especially the largest ones) are keen to influence and, if necessary, constrain it in their own interests. Smaller ones like Ireland want to limit that. The resulting package reflects compromises between these positions.
It will take time to decide whether the new service delivers a more coherent EU stance in world affairs; it cannot be judged until it is put in place next year. Other major actors in world affairs are confused on where the balance of power will fall. While the EU is not a state, nor becoming one, unitary action is necessary and expected of it in spheres such as trade, climate change, development aid, conflict resolution, civilian reconstruction and military involvement in UN and other missions. Greater consistency between such policies is needed to make them more effective. Baroness Ashton is expected to give them greater international visibility, notwithstanding her inconspicuous role so far.
This complex process of projecting the EU’s soft and hard power in world affairs is necessarily a slow burner. But, if the design is got right now, in the interests of all it can succeed to do a lot more together than separately.