Now that reform is possible, the problems are just beginning. Reform of the EU institutions and the way they operate under the Lisbon Treaty is no laughing matter and will be accompanied by its own share of complications and issues. Yesterday, I warned in this column against the dangers of rushing into careless enthusiasm. The new treaty will, of course, pave the way for a bigger, broadly positive future but there will be plenty of question marks and problems. One might almost say that reform is now possible but the problems are beginning. The planned innovations are invaluable but putting them into practice will require ambition, stamina, imagination and, above all, strong political will.
Hard work and a sprinkling of compromise will be required. Prudence is necessary when it comes to foreign affairs. An EU foreign policy will not automatically come into being as a result of legal innovations and the appointment of a handful of figureheads, and rapidly moving to qualified majority voting will not speed things up either. When the Iraq War broke out, the European Convention that was drawing up the draft European constitution was of course affected by the differences among the member states, and some Convention members and commentators pointed out that if the EU had had a qualified majority voting rule back then on issues like war, it would have made it possible to avoid the clash between countries. In reality, pointed out the Convention chair Valéry Giscard d'Estaing more or less explicitly, the opposite would have happened. With qualified majority voting, a common European foreign policy would have fallen apart before it could even get off the ground, because no matter whether the EU voted by qualified majority to join the United States' war or not, the outcome of the vote would not have been followed by at least some of the member states that voted against. It is a dangerous pipedream to imagine that an EU foreign policy can be generated using qualified majority voting right now.
The Lisbon Treaty will give the EU a stable chair of the European Council and, above all, a high representative for foreign affairs and security policy who will also be vice-president of the European Commission, chair of the External Relations Council and a common EU diplomatic service. These mechanisms are a positive development but have to be used wisely and carefully.
Jacques Delors' idea. Jacques Delors, former European Commission president, points out in his memoirs that in his day, he called for a pragmatic approach to foreign policy: “Every time member states believe common action to be their interest, they will propose that the European Council decides upon it. I would even add that if a minority of countries did not agree, it could put forward a so-called 'positive abstention' that would prevent the others from taking action.” There are areas where European countries share the same interests, and it is a good idea to put these across together, but when (for reasons of history or geopolitics) countries take different lines, then “any disagreements that might arise should not be turned into a disaster to the detriment of the European project.” Jacques Delors' idea: “Organise common action whenever there is a convergence of analysis, interests and the desire to take action”.
Back then, his idea was not taken on board: “Governments preferred the illusion of words, not realising that they would be sowing the seeds of disappointment and apathy among citizens as Europe gradually demonstrated its impotence in the face of the tragedy of the former Yugoslavia and various countries in Africa.” A few pages further down, he wrote: “One can only make progress through clearly defined common action over which consensus is possible.”
Advancing one step at a time. It would be a good idea for the common European diplomatic service currently in preparation to start by paying attention to defining EU views on general questions (like human rights) with the option of applying 'geographical tests' for certain areas, followed by step-by-step coordination with issues like immigration and intelligence. The new institutional structure (including the three-hatted job mentioned above - vice-president of the Commission/high representative/chair of the External Relations Council) should pave the way for what Delors described: “The EU, when it acts on foreign policy issues, should have all trump cards in the same hand: diplomacy of course, but also trade policy, financial resources, development aid and humanitarian action.”
Meanwhile, some countries are changing their line and I will be returning to this tomorrow.
(F.R./transl.fl)