Unlock Editor’s Digest for free
FT editor Roula Khalaf selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The author is director of the EU Institute for Security Studies and former senior adviser to the EU High Representative. He is co-editor of a new EUISS report,10 ideas for the new team‘
The EU’s foreign policy is in trouble. There is increasing evidence that the bloc is struggling to be relevant. Too often, it is reduced to the role of observer and commentator. There is plenty of activity in Brussels, but not enough impact.
Part of this is due to a lack of adaptation. EU foreign policy was designed for a world at peace, where multilateralism was strong and global rules and norms were respected. But that world no longer exists. We live in an era of strugglewhere territorial conflicts are rampant, Russia and China are promoting an anti-Western narrative, and basic international institutions are in crisis.
In many strategic theatres around the world, people are closely following the twists and turns of the US presidential campaign: they know what is at stake, both for themselves and for the world. However, the same is not true for the upcoming transition in Brussels, as Ursula von der Leyen begins her second five-year term as President of the European Commission.
So the EU needs to get its act together. The arrival of a new leadership team gives it the opportunity to change the way it relates to the world. Transition is the moment in EU politics when new ideas have a chance, before the concrete solidifies again. Here are some of them to consider.
First, the EU should rethink its understanding of partnerships and their naming. This starts with getting rid of outdated policy frameworks. The EU must go beyond the European Neighbourhood Policy and its one-size-fits-all approach.
By name and design, the ENP is too Eurocentric. Instead, the EU should forge partnerships tailored to the specific needs of its partners. A new commissioner for the Mediterranean sounds like a good idea, but only if the substance of the policy changes as well can the EU begin to influence events rather than comment on them or complain about the actions of others.
Similarly, the EU needs to be clearer about the relationship between China and Russia. There is growing convergence at the global level and Beijing has not been willing to deny Moscow the high-tech and dual-use goods it needs to continue its aggression against Ukraine. The EU needs to be realistic about the degree of influence it can exert over Chinese decisions in this area. This does not mean that there cannot be cooperation with China, but it does mean that the element of systemic competition will increasingly define relations.
Second, the EU needs new ways of working. And this starts from the top. Today, security is everything and everything is security: energy, migration, technology, cybersecurity and defence are all connected, but the EU “system” still treats them as separate. The EU needs a “council for the defence of Europe”, made up of leaders who can see the whole picture and arbitrate policy. The first day of every EU summit should be reserved for dealing with security issues – not in crisis mode as now, but to set a direction. The High Representative/Vice President should play the role that national security advisers play in capitals, briefing leaders and presenting policy packages. The EU also needs regular meetings of national security advisers, to Europeanise officials who are currently focused on their own countries.
Another area ripe for reform is the way the EU deals with emerging powers. The Commission should create a new directorate-general to manage relations with the major emerging powers. To win the “offer-side” battle, the EU needs a dedicated team and a new way of approaching partners that transcends the established categories of developing or neighbouring countries.
Third, the EU needs new ways of acting. It should be more selective in establishing new military and civilian missions. Many of these are small and understaffed, and too often they struggle to have an impact. In a world where its core security interests are under threat, the EU should focus more directly on resolving crises on and around the European continent.
This brings us to Ukraine. There is no bigger issue for European security. The EU has rightly broken taboos with its military support and its decision to start accession negotiations with kyiv. However, these days there are signs that Europe is taking a step back, as supplies of air defence and other equipment dwindle and uncertainty about future supplies grows.
However, this is no reason for fatalism. It is within Europe’s power, and in its fundamental interests, to help Ukraine prevail on the battlefield. One concrete way to do this would be by expanding current training efforts inside Ukraine. This would increase the efficiency of current training efforts, keeping soldiers closer to the front line. Europeans cannot afford to do otherwise.