Today is not the first time that the European Union faces stark criticism for its foreign policy. In fact, many political scientists argue that the EU does not and will not for the foreseeable future possess a true common foreign policy due to its intergovernmental character and the resulting conflicts of interest among member states.
Yet, I agree with those who refer to the EU as a foreign political actor. The EU conducts its external relations with third parties based on clearly defined goals: prosperity, human rights, and democracy. And the EU has at least two instruments with powerful leverage in its tool box.
The EU itself considers enlargement as its most powerful policy tool, and one can also make a case for the new European Neighborhood Policy as another efficient instrument of the EU’s particular brand of foreign policy.
However, an actor who claims to promote democracy cannot simply be trusted just because he says so. For the EU to gain credibility, it has to achieve the goals it set itself. Neither enlargement nor the neighborhood policy can be successful if the other actors that the EU is dealing with do not consider the EU a reliable actor.
The EU’s failure to operate successfully in its external relations – especially in conflict situations – is well-chronicled. The two cases of Bosnia and Iraq motivated and fueled much of the criticism levied against the EU’s foreign policy, i.e. the lack of a common foreign policy.
We currently have another powerful case at hand to criticize the EU and its “brand” of foreign policy. Recent developments in Gaza highlight once again the EU’s unsuccessful attempts in dealing with international conflicts.
The EU’s diplomatic approach and the financial aid it provides can be efficient and are important policy tools. But these measures characteristic of a civilian power tend to work and take effect only once the hot phase of a conflict is over.
While the EU seeks a more active role in the handling of the Gaza conflict, this role appears hard to achieve when you consider the various, sometimes mutually contradicting statements by European Union politicians. These statements work to undermine multilateral talks or any attempt for a solution.
Recent examples of the EU’s cacophony can easily be found in the news. After France condemned the Israeli incursion into Gaza, the spokesperson from the Czech EU presidency described it as a “defensive, not offensive” operation. Such obvious disagreement over the distribution of roles is not a good way of dealing with the conflict - especially if you seek an active role.
Based on news reports, now two separate EU visits to the region are anticipated: The first led by Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg together with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, the Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, representing the future EU presidency, and EU External Affairs Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner and the second visit led by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
So with whom are the negotiations taking place? Who is the spokesperson? And who represents the EU?
Looking at all these question marks, one has to wonder how the EU expects to be successful in its Euro-Mediterranean politics. The project of a Mediterranean Union can also be understood as the EU’s dialogue with the Muslim world but the multitude of different European approaches to the Gaza conflict make a successful external policy towards the Mediterranean almost impossible.
In sum, we have recently witnessed another case which supports the view that the EU will never have a common foreign policy, due to both its multinational and intergovernmental character as well as the lack of a single voice. All of this results in a further weakening of the EU’s perception as a credible actor on the international scene.
