Ever since states try to achieve their foreign policy goals, they create various forms of cooperation with each other: this ranges from ad hoc alliances (keeping the option of abandoning the connection practically anytime) to forming federal states (practically terminating the existence of the state for becoming part of a presumably stronger state entity). Where is the European Union today? An ad hoc alliance, or already a federal state? The truth is – as usual – somewhere in between, with ideas and dreams – or fantasies – on the table about its possible development in the near future.
Does the EU have foreign policy goals at all?
The European Union has declared foreign policy goals, with its foreign and security policy aiming to preserve peace, strengthen international security, promote international cooperation, and develop democracy, rule of law, and human rights. Currently these are determined by the Lisbon Treaty, in force since 2009.
These are set out in Article 21, including safeguarding EU values, fundamental interests, security, independence and integrity, plus some European values, meaning consolidating and supporting democracy, rule of law and human rights. There are also some more general goals, such as preserving peace, preventing conflicts and strengthening international security and also promoting an international system based on stronger multilateral cooperation and good global governance.
In general, we can conclude that these are shared by all member states – hence their establishment on the level of a founding treaty – so the mere existence of these EU-level goals and interests do not mean the existence of specific “EU interests”, being separated from those of the member states. The core interests and principles of the European Union are currently set out in the EU’s Global Strategy for foreign and security policy (see here: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/global-strategy-european-unions-foreign-and-security-policy_en ) which does not specify anything which would not be in conformity with or be conflicting with any member states’ interests. As a result, we can conclude that currently the EU foreign policy has not separated itself from those of the member states, so currently it seems to assist member states’ foreign policies, not complementing and surely not substituting those.
At the same time, it is important to realize that member states often do not take actual steps for ensuring all the goals they identify as foreign policy goals. This does have a lot of reasons, we can find those mostly around lack of actual interest or resources. If instead of them, those are being represented by the EU itself, it gives power and influence even to those member states which otherwise would stay passive. This is where the European Union has a complementing effect, not on the level of setting goals and interests but on the level of enforcing those – in case of consent given to it by the member states.
Game of competences…
Based on the Lisbon Treaty, the European Union gained legal personality, became a subject of international law, meaning that it is capable of negotiating and concluding international agreements on its own behalf on fields which fall under its exclusive competence – here the EU may make foreign policy decisions on its own right. If the subject matter of an agreement does not fall under the exclusive competence of the EU, member states also have to accept the given international treaty according to their own constitutional provisions, meaning that the EU does not have the power of its own to make decisions here.
This comes from the logic that the distribution of competences between the EU and the member states also apply at the international level. The interesting part comes when a foreign policy question does not belong to exclusive Union competence – and those usually do not. So as a thumb rule we can establish, that EU foreign policy exists, if it is supported by the member states, that is why we may see serious tensions and debates in many foreign policy-related questions: as they do not fall under Union competence, the EU may not develop its own political will related to those situations.
Who is responsible for the EU’s foreign policy?
The fundamentals of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) were established in 1993 when creating the European Union itself with the Maastricht Treaty. Later treaties have introduced various developments, but the basics have remained mostly unchanged: the EU is still a cooperation structure of sovereign states, which requires consensus.
The European Union’s foreign policy is implemented by several actors, the biggest decision-making role being upheld to member states. This puts the Council on the top position when it comes to making decisions in this field.
Foreign policy decisions of the European Union are made through a process which involves all the institutions mentioned above. As the EU is not a federal state but a cooperation structure of sovereign states, the ultimate decision-making power in foreign policy rests with the member states, and is being exercised by the European Council, comprised of heads of state and governments, usually requiring consensus of all member states. The same applies to the Council of the European Union (from now on: Council), which represents member states on the ministerial level, and is responsible for decision-making in some fields of foreign policy.
The current responsibilities and tasks are regulated by the Lisbon Treaty since 2009. Its articles set out the roles of both the European Council and of the Council in the EU’s common foreign and security policy, which includes the common security and defence policy. Based on those, the European Council has to set the overall political direction and establish priorities, while the Council defines and implements those priorities.
According to this, the European Council has to identify the strategic interests of the EU (logically requiring the highest political level to make this decision), it has to set out the objectives of the EU’s foreign policy and its general guidelines (including defence matters), and it has to adopt the necessary decisions for that.
The new political post created in 2009 by the Lisbon Treaty, the President of the European Council has some important roles related to foreign policy. He/she represents the EU internationally in foreign policy matters, but has to respect the powers of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. This position is the chief coordinator and representative of the common foreign policy within the European Union. The position was originally established by the Treaty of Amsterdam, later re-shaped by the Lisbon Treaty, with its current powers, including a seat on the European Commission as Vice-President, and a chair of the council of EU foreign ministers. At the same time, the High Representative takes part in the work of the European Council, giving direct access to the highest level of decision-making in foreign policy.
The Council is responsible for ensuring that EU foreign policy action is effective when implementing the decisions of the European Council. Basically the ministerial-level Council has to take the role of the executive in foreign policy-related matters, which is usually taken by the European Commission. The High Representative chairs the meetings of the EU Foreign Affairs Council (FAC), the work of which is supported by a number of committees and preparatory bodies, like the Political and Security Committee, the Military Committee, or the Committee for Civilian Aspects of Crisis Management. After the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the European External Action Service has been created to assist the Council in implementing foreign policy decisions of the EU – practically evolving into its foreign policy “arm” ever since.
The European Commission, which is usually vested with the task of representing the overall interests of the European Union and acts as its general executive body and the one preparing decisions, have multiple roles with foreign policy but none of those cover making final political decisions capable of confronting interests of any member state. With preparing decisions, it definitely contributes to the formulation of the external relations policies of the European Union and it also has important managerial roles. Trade relations with third countries (via its 120 delegations and offices around the globe and the task of representing all of the EU in e.g. the World Trade Organisation) and organising the humanitarian and development assistance of the EU are the two most important tasks. It is also important to mention its role with accession negotiations with potential new members – while the Commission has to respect the mandate given to it by the member states thus it is not a decision-maker, it does possess serious influence with this task.
The European Parliament, while being a directly elected body with direct legitimacy, is not a relevant actor in EU foreign policy. Of course, its elected members are usually quite vocal with questions related to foreign policy questions, but according to the founding treaties, the consent of the European Parliament is only needed to adopt international treaties on matters in the competence of the EU. Any other questions, e.g. decisions on foreign policy sanctions stay with the European Council and the Council.
Deficiencies and weaknesses with the current structure
Generally, foreign and security policy-related decisions require consensus of all member states, giving opportunities to them to sometimes connect their individual interests to wider European questions, using their veto power for blocking decisions – in some form of a political blackmailing (see our earlier analysis on the veto), which – in general – makes the EU slow and sometimes inefficient, even weak in foreign policy-related matters. Many argue that the requirement of the consent of all EU member states should be abolished and some form of a majority-based decision-making process should be introduced (for an example see our earlier analysis).
The problem here is something of a political nature. What if a possible action by the EU would be conflicting the interests of a member state? The current rules try to make sure that a situation like that does not occur, as without the consent of that member state, a foreign policy action is not possible. Introducing a majority-based decision-making procedure would surface the danger of frictions between the EU and a member state possibly leading to not only inside tensions, but also to steps by the member state trying to sabotage or neutralise the EU action it opposes. This must not happen.
The so-called “constructive abstention” has been made possible with an eye on “manageable” differences on interests. This means that a member state may decide to abstain from voting on a particular foreign policy action without blocking it, and at the same time make a formal declaration. The effect of this is that it shall not be obliged to apply the Union decision, but at the same time it shall accept its decision. But this tool is obviously not an option in the case of a serious conflict of interests.
In those cases, the situation is dire and there is no quick solution in sight. But currently, all possible foreign policy decisions of the EU has roots in the interests and decisions of the member states. With the current institutional order and working methods, EU wil never be a substitute to the member states in foreign policy.