Ten Member States backed Germany’s move to inject a new common approach for better decision-making under the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), namely France, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, Austria, Romania, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, and Spain.
This note, seen by Agence Europe, was sent on Monday 31 August to feed into the discussions of the Foreign Ministers of the EU27, meeting informally on 2 September in Ireland.
These countries, led by Berlin, which has long campaigned for a change in the rules, are calling in particular to rethink of the use of the veto in certain foreign policy decisions.
“The Union’s external action faces a fundamentally changed landscape, shaped by strategic competition, growing instability, and attempts to undermine the rules-based international order. In this environment, the Union’s ability to defend its values and interests hinges on whether it can mobilize its collective political, economic, and diplomatic weight quickly and effectively. This requires a CFSP that is able to deliver and to take fast decisions when speed, resolve and political weight are needed most”, they write.
The Union’s culture of consensus is admittedly “an important source of its legitimacy”, but “must also ensure that this culture of consensus fosters common action rather than preventing it – otherwise we will have legitimacy but no strength”, these countries continue.
They propose five avenues: - a spirit of sincere cooperation; - use of constructive abstentions; - no linkage to unrelated matters; - encouraging the High Representative to explore the use of options in the Treaties; - substantiated vital reasons of national policy.
“We will increasingly use constructive abstentions in accordance with the Treaties, whenever a Member State is unable to support a CFSP decision, so as not to prevent the Union from acting”, these capitals say in particular. They will also refrain from “obstructively linking a CFSP decision to matters that are substantially unrelated”.
Lastly, if a CFSP decision is to be taken by qualified majority, each Member State may oppose it “for vital and stated reasons of national policy”, as provided for by the Treaties.
“We also commit ourselves to setting out those reasons in a substantive manner, so as to enable meaningful consultation and efforts to identify an acceptable solution” for all. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)