The EU’s incoherent foreign policy on full display
The EU has gained a trading bloc but not yet found a role
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s trip to Israel has ignited a firestorm among MEPs and European officials.
The unscheduled visit has been described as yet another example of overreach by the unelected body.
Speaking alongside Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the aftermath of the Hamas attack which killed over 1,000 Israelis von der Leyen said, “In the face of this unspeakable tragedy, there is only one possible response: Europe stands with Israel.”
Shortly after the barbaric attack the commission’s HQ lit up the Israeli flag with the message: “Israel has the right to defend itself – today and in the days to come.”
Such an expression would seem modest enough given the horrific nature of the attack Israel suffered which saw Hamas militants storm a music festival and a Kibbutz targeting civilians.
But von der Leyen forgot to ask for the seal of approval from her foreign policy superiors within the bureaucratic halls of Brussels.
The statement of solidarity along with the unsanctioned trip led to a harsh rebuke from the EU’s foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell who emphasised that it is he and Charles Michel of the European Council, which represents the 27 EU member states, whom chair the meetings where EU foreign policy is crafted.
The Spanish socialist stated that while Europe would “defend the right of Israel to defend itself against the attack” such defence is limited by ‘international and humanitarian law.’
The EU’s high representative for foreign affairs made the stunning public admonishment of the rogue commissioner in Beijing where he contradicted his German counterpart yet again. Speaking alongside Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi he stated that, “Europe takes China very, very seriously” emphasising that “cooperation is very important.”
The realpolitik approach comes after von der Leyen announced an investigation on whether to implement EU tariffs on Chinese electric vehicle (EV) imports supposedly benefiting from state subsidies, risking a trade war with a major European market. That announcement was also uncoordinated with other EU bodies and member states.
The spectre of an unelected German centralising decision making in Europe lends credence to the Eurosceptic claims of the EU behaving as a continuation of pre-war Germany through economic means.
Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi meets with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, July 15, 2021. (Xinhua/Cai Guodong)
Since the pandemic von der Leyen has sought to transform the commissioner position from that of a technocratic figurehead to a de facto president of Europe, of course without being elected. Spearheading joint vaccine procurement, joint borrowing and representing Europe abroad in Kiev, Tunisia and now Jerusalem “she has increasingly been behaving like a queen,” according to an anonymous irate EU diplomat speaking to Politico.
Irish MEP Billy Kelleher said von der Leyen’s “position will become untenable” if she continues to contradict European policy.
Amid all the pearl-clutching and sanctimony from unnamed officials and diplomats the EU’s lack of a coherent foreign policy has long been a cause for international concern with Queen von der Leyen a mere symptom of this lack of clarity.
The godfather of American diplomacy and erudite international observer Henry Kissinger exemplified this perennial issue when he asked: “Who do I call if I want to call Europe?”
While such a quotation may be apocryphal, ultimately Kissinger’s contacts list would be quite extensive as it’s unclear in times of crisis how to reach Europe. Would he call the President of the European Council, the High Representative of the Union, the President of the European Commission, or the Head of the government of the Member State currently holding the rotating Presidency?
It’s not clear.
Following World War 2 US Secretary of State Dean Achenson infamously said, “Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role.”
Indeed, following World War 2 Europe gained a trading bloc, and subsequently an economic union, but has yet to find a role internationally.
While the EEC achieved a greater amalgamation of industries between previously warring European countries ultimately the EU has always lacked the heft to influence world events.
Founded to prevent another conflict in Europe, with war on the continent rearing its ugly head once more the EU has sought to act as one voice when it comes to Russia’s invasion in Ukraine but is constrained by the competing interests of member states.
Following the invasion, some member states such as Poland showed little restraint in responding. Others including Germany and France sought diplomacy. If you can recall when Emmanuel Macron was harangued by Polish prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki for his calls with Vladimir Putin when he said “nobody negotiated with Hitler.”
Indeed, the sanctions imposed on Russia have severely weakened Europe economically. Germany, the powerhouse of Europe, is suffering a technical recession as its input intensive industries’ PMIs fall precipitously as Russian gas imports plummet.
In November 2022, the PMI for the industrial sector in Germany was at 46.2 points. The larger the difference to 50 points, the more significant the change. 50 is considered a neutral value, more than 50 is an increase and less than 50 is an indicator of regressing industrial production.
Attempts by Macron to achieve greater European strategic autonomy away from an isolationist America under Trump and a protectionist one under Biden along with Borell’s tour of the global south is a sign of European leaders embracing the multipolar horizon.
However, while leading the way in regulating big tech amid heightened concerns about internet privacy through its brainchild GDPR and the Digital Services Act with other countries such as South Korea and South Africa following suit, the EU is, for all intents and purposes, a regulatory body, not yet a serious geopolitical contender.
Von der Leyen’s machinations highlights the need for the commission to become more democratic and accountable if it is to adapt and survive in the years ahead.
Earlier this year I took part in a debate in St Ann’s Church on the topic of directly elected EU commission.
In the debate I argued, or had to argue, that a constant criticism of the EU is the unelected yet powerful nature of the commission that similarly lacks sufficient checks and balances.
As MEPs line up to criticise von der Leyen’s visit two-thirds of the over 700 strong European Parliament is what’s required in a vote to censure her.
The only time a commissioner has been ‘sacked’ was when the Santer Commission voluntarily resigned en masse in 1999 amid a corruption scandal.
The commission with its various directorates, staff, the college of commissioners and president is often described as a European civil service independent of politics and national interests.
But as exemplified by recent events, increasingly the commission has morphed into what was described by the former European Commission president Jean Claude Juncker as a political body.
Yet as the commission veers more and more into the geopolitical realm it lacks that fundamental democratic accountability.
The fact is that at present the European Commission is selected for appointment by the council behind closed doors and is then voted in on by the parliament.
This is fundamentally undemocratic.
Talk of relinquishing unanimity with qualified majority when voting on foreign policy matters, in an attempt to quell the veto utilised by member states such as Hungary, would create an even greater democratic deficit in Brussels.
It is vital that the EU discovers a renewed clarity of purpose.
Increasing its foreign policy powers without setting out a coherent international role will further discontent within its borders.