Wanted: a strategic vision

It is a sad fact that the EU has no strategic vision in foreign affairs. This is partly due to structural problems and partly due to personality problems. But both contribute to the strategic impasse - and it is becoming increasingly intolerable as time goes by.

Kosovo in the heart of Europe threatens to revert to violence as it seeks independence from Serbia. On Europe’s edge the near Middle East - Israel, Palestine and Lebanon - is like a closed simmering pot, about to explode at any second. While further afield Iraq has already exploded, Iran and its nuclear potentials is waiting on the sidelines and Afghanistan is devolving back into tribal chaos courtesy of the Taliban.

To all these imminent and threatening problems the EU has no adequate answers other than large cheques and empty statements - nor, on the whole, do its member states.

The structural problems, as any freshman student of the Union would be able to see, are the absence of the EU constitution - or any other treaty that would enable a forum where one could both discuss and manage larger and long-term foreign and defence issues.

Currently the Political and Security Committee (COPS) is only empowered to handle the tactical creation and management of EU operations that mostly involve member state assets. On the other hand the European Commission holds all the instruments for implementing all aspects of a strategy, but lacks the power or ability to generate one.

An immediate solution may be the creation of a Coreper 3, mandated to deal with Common Foreign, Security and Defence Policy (CFSP) and European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) issues. But there is no chance that either member states or their permanent representatives to the EU would agree to such a formulation.

The permanent representatives took quite some time to get used to the existence of the COPS and the idea that another ambassadorial forum in the EU could discuss and decide any issue. They are therefore unlikely to accept more encroachment upon their remit.

This leads to the personality problems: the member states currently suffer from a deplorable lack of political leadership. We are living with a generation of mediocre politicians who shy away from any bold initiatives and prefer to blame the EU for any difficult decisions. Among these, foreign ministers appear to be the worst.

Within the EU the situation is not much better. In the CFSP and ESDP the Commission cannot take the lead and, in a relatively weak line-up, those commissioners dealing with these issues are neither particularly strong nor very inspired. But the larger part of the problem lies across the street, in the Council of Ministers.

Javier Solana, the EU’s foreign policy chief, can correctly point out that he and his office do not have a mandate to deal with strategic issues. But, on the other hand, that may be irrelevant: Solana is the master of the small deal and the tactical package. And that may be the correct approach for getting member states to form the basic offices of a foreign and security apparatus, such as COPS or a military staff. But it is not one that will turn the EU into the international player it seeks to be and needs to be.

What is at stake is not merely the prestige of the EU, or its constitutional arrangements. The list of problems has a direct impact upon both the security of EU citizens and the defence of the Union.

As such, the leadership of both the member states and the EU institutions must start to deal with these issues in a fundamental and far-reaching manner and they must start doing so now. Tactics can no longer suffice: it is time for strategy.

• Ilana Bet-El is an academic, author and policy adviser based in Brussels.

It is a sad fact that the EU has no strategic vision in foreign affairs. This is partly due to structural problems and partly due to personality problems. But both contribute to the strategic impasse - and it is becoming increasingly intolerable as time goes by.

• Primary Source