COLUMN: Europe does not have the time for this
|
|
|
By Kari Huhta
Now would be a good moment to strike while the iron is hot.
The European Union has a new Commission, a new Parliament, and a freshly-signed treaty ratified by the member-states in December of last year, with the purpose of strengthening the Union internally and in its external relations.
In the wake of the approval of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU has appointed Herman Van Rompuy as President of the European Council, and Catherine Ashton as its High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, effectively the EU's foreign minister.
The Union is thus arguably ready to roll at a moment when elsewhere the ranks are still in disarray after the economic crisis of 2008 and 2009.
Various leadership roles are now on offer to those who have something to give. Europe should have that something.
As the world's largest economic area in terms of its combined mass, the EU's "soft power" wherewithal could be used to build bridges, forge contacts, and generally shape the world.
But no. The answer we get back from the EU is that Europe is currently engaged on a construction project. Come back in a couple of years, or maybe five, when the Union has got its own new foreign ministry - the "European External Action Service" - up and running.
Until then, the EU's new foreign policy leadership will spend its time and energies on the internal "all against all" power struggle that is joined in the Council, the Commission and Parliament, and all 27 member-states.
Really we do not have the luxury of the time for all this.
In no shape or form does the EU have a couple of years, or even a couple of months for that matter, to tread water and concentrate on its inner self without appreciably harming its international standing and significance.
The situation could be demonstrated by swapping the word "EU" for the name of any other major player on the international political stage - say the United States or China - who would suddenly step up and announce that they are intending to have a two-year sabbatical in their foreign policy doings.
The Union does also have its defenders in this course of action.
Finland's own Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Stubb (National Coalition Party) has commented that criticism of the EU's new common foreign policy and of Catherine Ashton has been over the top.
Excessive the criticism would certainly be if it were to demand that all the structures already be in place. In the multi-state organisation that the Union is, building the new is a process, and not an event with an on-switch, and these things have always taken their own time.
In addition, Finland and many of the other smaller EU members have reasons of their own to support the common foreign policy line, even in the face of setbacks.
EU policy does not replace a country's own foreign affairs policymaking, but it can strengthen influence within the EU and in the world outside, where the competition is now extremely fierce.
For Ashton to fail in her endeavours would be a blow to Finland.
It would also be quite unreasonable to declare the EU's common foreign, security, and defence policy a dead duck and a failure when it is no more than three months old.
On the other hand, the project cannot be rescued merely by delivering empty paeans of praise.
The EU's problems are real and serious.
With the reform of structures, rather than picking up speed as had been hoped, the Union's foreign policy has run into a wall.
Under present conditions, the European Union ought to be moving at a brisk trot just to hold on to its former international position.
Disparaging comments have been made on the low profile taken by the Union on kick-starting the aid operation following the Haiti earthquake.
This was nevertheless a one-off case, in which the role of the United States was clearly decisive. However, in addition to this example there have been other more pertinent missed opportunities. Foreign policy is something that is made all the time - the clock does not stop.
It is hard to come up quickly with a situation recently where the EU's foreign policy leadership would have succeeded in making any memorable initiative or capturing the essence of how the world is feeling right now.
At the same time, the ongoing power game within the EU has taken a turn worse even than predicted. Spain, who took over the six-month rotating Presidency of the Council of the European Union from January, has thrown banana-skins in Ashton's path in order to bolster its own position.
She has not been given any strong support from the large member-states or from within the EU itself.
Even before now, internal dissent and disunity have been the Achilles heel of European Union foreign policy.
This is all the more of an obstacle now that the EU has written for itself increasinly demanding objectives in this sphere.
Among partners and rivals, Russia is a grizzled veteran at making use of the demarcation lines within the EU, and has no qualms at all about playing member-states off one against another.
If one looks at the matter from the opposite direction, a disunited Union also has a weaker bargaining position when trying to persuade Russia into more constructive cooperation.
To the new centres of power emerging in the footsteps of China, the EU is changing in the simple direction of becoming less important.
With this, the EU's significance across the Atlantic is also eroded, and it is to the US that the European Union is a natural and important partner in many global projects.
The biggest and most present harm accruing from Europe's foreign policy dithering could precisely be in this department, in a loosening of the ties with the United States.
People have been talking about it for so many years that a real weakening on this front could start without its being fully recognised.
Europe's economic and political success in past decades has been intricately bound up with a multi-level partnership with the United States.
President Barack Obama's considerable popularity with Europeans has nevertheless not brought a new impetus to the relationship, even though it was widely expected to happen.
The war in Afghanistan is fraying nerves on both sides of the Atlantic, and the tone of the speeches is becoming increasingly worried.
Relationships are a two-way street, and Europe now has the task of showing its colours.
By getting its common foreign policy into shape, the EU would improve its position on all fronts.
The project is quite as important to the EU's external weight and standing as getting the spendthrift Greeks into line is for the credibility of the Union's economic and political arms.
In its process of political and economic integration, the EU has got to where it is now through decades of painstaking building.
A common foreign and security policy came into the mix only with the Maastricht Treaty of 1992.
If the building work stops, European integration will not only stall with it, but it will inexorably begin to unravel.
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 28.2.2010
KARI HUHTA / Helsingin Sanomat
kari.huhta@hs.fi
|
| 2.3.2010 - THIS WEEK |
 COLUMN: Europe does not have the time for this |
|
