European Commission getting ready. The European Commission adopts its document next month on the Defence aspect of EU activity - in other words, the military aspect. This document will not, of course, focus on setting the content of the EU's foreign policy and defence policy, but on considering the permanent connection between the civil and military aspects - especially between the Commission itself and the other Community institutions on the one hand, and the European military authorities on the other. All this is ahead of the European summit in December which will be devoted to these issues.
The situation. In the meantime, the various analyses and positions are becoming more numerous. It is increasingly evident that a wide military presence active in almost all the world is not the current trend for Europe (nor is it the American approach). The lessons of the past have not been to no avail - with their results that have often been negative, differences of opinion on certain choices and trouble in withdrawing.
Of course, the EU has to take part in certain actions and sometime take initiatives - participating, in the security of the Suez Canal is crucial, for example. But even involvement that is essential can bring trouble and sometimes have unpleasant repercussions - the case of the two officers from the Italian navy who were detained in India proves my point. I'm not in the slightest trying to support one or other approach, and still less give advice - I'm trying to outline and clarify what is right under our noses.
Illusory autonomy. In our European Library supplement (no 1007), Michel Theys wrote about the book The EU's Foreign Policy. What Kind of Power and Diplomatic Action? which, under the editorship of Mario Telo and Frederik Ponjaert, is the first in a collection that attempts to assess the EU's foreign policy, the way it works and its results. The opinions of those who collaborated on this publication are not uniform.
Mr Theys notes that the book's authors agree on one point, however - that Europe is largely deficient in using its theoretical possibilities. Some of the authors go further. According to Professor Jolyon Howorth from the University of Yale, Europe-power (in other words, the autonomous security actor) is an illusion. Intervention in Libya, for example, turned out to be impossible without having recourse to the Atlantic Alliance. In Mr Telo's opinion, the same weaknesses were evident in the Arab Spring problem - where the demilitarisation of European countries and institutional complexities made any EU military cooperation practically impossible. Mr Telo nevertheless leaves the door open to a positive evolution, on two conditions - that common foreign policy be better structured in the long term, and that diplomatic action be really coordinated. On this second aspect, we are all well aware that the instrument exists and that it is gradually being implemented - ambassadors and officials wear a Community hat.
Yet in order to function, this European nature makes the assumption that the positions of the member states are uniform. We are a long way from this, however, and so much so that the book asserts that, at the current time, we are more taking part in a diplomatisation of the EU rather than a Europeanisation of its member states' policies. Telo's judgment on the European neighbourhood policy is very harsh too.
European ambassadors without common positions. I've talked at length about this book because it seems to me that it summarises the current situation effectively. The assertion that creating European diplomats does not mean that the foreign and military policies of the member states are Europeanised is to be underlined (and what's more, I've just done this). The appointment of a significant number of EU representative or ambassadors by Mrs Ashton is a façade - it's positive but will only have any real effect the day these diplomats are able to express common positions that are shared by all. This is not the case.
A summit to be watched. It is positive that the member states have arranged a meeting at the highest level in December to discuss European unity, finally, in a domain as vital as foreign policy - including military aspects. Six months are left to prepare for the meeting. I have tried to summarise the situation in three instalments (EUROPE 10866, 10869 and this edition).
The December summit will not be decisive - others will follow at regular intervalss (one meeting every two years). The important thing is the awareness that the EU must establish a common foreign and military policy and that the December summit will be the first step in this process.
(FR/transl.fl)