It would be illusory to believe… In his speech to the College of Europe in Bruges (mentioned in this column yesterday), the president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, clarified the possible development of EU foreign policy, following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. He confirmed to what extent it would be illusory to believe that this policy already exists or that it will exist in a short while. The institutions are there, the instruments are being prepared and it will be these that gradually define this policy and implement it. Mr Van Rompuy affirmed that “we should not be surprised if in the next 10 years certain differences appear in the positions taken by member states. History and geography play an important role in foreign policy. This is not just about large versus small member states. It is also about having historic ties with certain regions in the world, or about being an island versus sharing a border with Russia. Such differences are real and will not go away like that. As President of the European Council, I will consider everyone's interests and sensitivities”.
The president added that “new institutions and new offices have been created” (he explicitly mentioned his own role and that of Catherine Ashton). However, it does not suffice to create a new institution to solve a problem, certainly not immediately. This requires consultation between member states and time”.
Majority voting is not a solution. Regular readers of this column will understand why I consider that the position taken by Mr Van Rompuy is important. This is one of the old lessons of Jacques Delors and partly also of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing to those who imagined (and in certain cases still imagine) that common foreign policy already exists and that, in cases of divergence, it would be enough to proceed to majority voting to define the European position. Let's consider, for example, that the EU could now adopt a common position on the recognition of Kosovo or decide whether the EU should be represented as an entity in itself (instead of by member states) at the UN Security Council. This would be just as unrealistic as imagining that in the past it could have voted for or against participation in the war in Iraq. European positions have already been defined whenever it has proved possible and these cover important areas as we have seen with the war in Georgia (but not with regard to any follow up). Global foreign policy, however, will only come into being on a step-by-step basis, by way of the European diplomatic service (which will examine the different situations and prepare common positions, but does not yet exist) and through the patient rapprochement announced by Mr Van Rompuy. Ms Ashton is not the European minister for foreign affairs but rather the figure who, by way of her triple role, could take pertinent action to see this ministerial role come into being.
Declarations and reality. The European Parliament is right to defend its prerogatives and try to play a role in this domain, but it should also be happy that it does not have the faculty itself to determine by majority voting whether we have peace or go to war, or whether relations are cut with Russia or with any other third country. Taking a position is all well and good but deciding is something altogether different. Mr Van Rompuy has proved that he understands what reality actually is by avoiding any mention, among the founding elements of future common foreign policy, of declarations that are made on a daily basis, such as welcoming the fact that in such and such a country there has been an election; that some imprisoned figure has been released; or of condemning the fact that that freedom of the press has been violated; or expressing regret for a natural disaster or aeroplane crash. It is both normal and necessary to take this action, as well as being useful. Presidents of institutions sign up to them every day and a few parliamentarians sometimes create the impression that this is their main activity.
European foreign policy, however, is something entirely different. Links with third countries and the position taken with one or another of them are forged over time. Cooperation projects sometimes span decades and cannot be blocked every time a denunciation of suspect behaviour is made. This is not a personal remark, it is the observation made by figures who have acted with nobility and effectiveness against all infringements of major principles and who, when they have become responsible for making decisions, have had to face reality. The most well known example is that of the French minister for foreign affairs. There are many others who, on the other hand, believe it possible to suspend cooperation with Russia or China because of certain behaviour that, quite rightly, should be condemned. It is much easier to attack the weakest but this would be unfair.
(F.R./transl.fl)